Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Emma Hardy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all Members who have participated in today’s debate; it has been a privilege to listen to the thoughtful and varied contributions made by colleagues across the House. I am sorry that, because there were just so many of them, I will be unable to refer to each one individually. However, I add my thanks to the citizen scientists in many constituencies who have been mentioned. I thank the school eco clubs, which have also had a mention, all the workers out there and the regulators. I state my recognition of the impact that sewage pollution has not just on the environment, but on tourism and local businesses. May I say how impressed I am by the number of Members who go wild swimming? I add my mum to the list of people who love doing that.

I must confess that, with nine days to Christmas, my love of Christmas may shine through in these closing remarks. I believe I might even have detected just a sprinkling of Christmas magic in the air, because what other explanation can there possibly be for all the unity we have heard across the Chamber? Nobody is telling us that they want the status quo, everybody thinks the situation has got worse, and through the many conversations I have had as Minister, I know that those opinions are shared by investors, environmental groups, the general public and even the water companies themselves.

I know, like all Members here, that all I want for Christmas are cleaner rivers, lakes and seas. In fact, as I think back to last Christmas, I believe that the public had almost given up hope. Our rivers, lakes and seas were polluted, bonuses were being awarded to polluting water bosses, wrongdoing was often going unpunished, and overseeing that failure were a tired Government who had run out of ideas. Then, something great happened: the wonderful people of our country elected a Labour Government. That Labour Government immediately got to work drafting this Water (Special Measures) Bill, along with a water commission to fundamentally transform our water sector for decades to come. It will prove that we did not need a Christmas miracle to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas; we just needed a Labour Government. The Bill will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry as part of a wider effort to ensure that water companies deliver for customers and the environment.

During the debate, I have been making a list, checking it twice, and I would like to respond to some of the main points made. On the scope of the Bill, reform and wider issues, Members across the House have spoken about the need for more radical reform and raised concerns about wider quality issues. This Bill is intentionally narrow. We are focused on improving the performance and culture of the water industry as an urgent priority, ahead of the forthcoming £88 billion of investment in the 2024 price review. Many Members spoke about the need to hold companies to account, and the measures in the Bill do just that.

However, we know that this Bill alone will not be enough to fix our water system; we know that we need to go further. That is why we have launched the independent commission, which will look at the roles and responsibilities of the regulator among many other fundamental aspects of the water sector. All Members are invited to participate in the call for evidence in the new year. Many Members have also spoken about our precious chalk streams. The Government are committed to the protection and restoration of our cherished chalk streams, and the best way to achieve that is by fixing the framework for managing our water system, as we are doing through the commission.

Some Members expressed concerns about the timing of the commission. I reassure the House that the commission will publish a report in quarter 2 of 2025, with recommendations for actionable solutions to the sector’s problems, which will inform further legislation to transform our water industry.

A few hon. Members mentioned that nationalisation was not in the Bill’s scope. To give the short answer, that would be complex and time-consuming, would halt the investment needed—we would lose £88 billion of private investment—and would do nothing to stop sewage pollution.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the need for our regulator to be properly equipped to make use of the new powers in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned, the Environment Agency is already recruiting up to 500 additional staff for inspections, enforcement and stronger regulation of the water industry, increasing compliance checks and quadrupling the number of water company inspections by March. However, the measures in the Bill go further and will better enable the regulators to ensure that companies are held to account. The new cost recovery power in the Bill will enable the Environment Agency to fully recover the costs of its water company enforcement activities.

In addition, new automatic penalties will allow the regulators to enforce minor to moderate offences more quickly and proportionately. Collectively, these measures will complement each other to enable the regulators to address widespread water industry underperformance. We are currently looking at the water restoration fund.

On protecting customers, many hon. Members rightly pointed out that companies have not delivered for their customers. I reassure all hon. Members that the Government are clear that customers should be placed at the heart of water company operations. That is why we will bring forward secondary legislation to introduce new and increased compensation—double the previous amount or more—which will be compulsory for water companies to pay customers for poor service, underscoring our commitment to hold companies to account and stand up for customers. That work, together with measures in the Bill that elevate the voices of consumers, will ensure that water companies deliver for their customers as a priority.

On the importance of transparency, we are better equipping customers to hold water companies to account. Clause 3 will close the current monitoring gap. However, monitoring volume and concentration is much more complex, leading to significant costs and a longer roll-out time. Such additional monitoring would not be proportionate for emergency overflows because they should be used only on very limited occasions.

Before we go—I have just a couple more—driving home for Christmas, I will conclude. The Bill will deliver the most significant increase in enforcement powers for water industry regulators in a decade, including strengthening regulation to ensure that water bosses face personal criminal liability for serious lawbreaking and new powers to ban bonuses from being paid if environmental standards are not met. The Bill is not just about policy; it is about protecting consumers, safeguarding our environment and ensuring that water companies operate transparently and responsibly.

I am confident that with the collective expertise and dedication of this House, we can pass this legislation and make a real impact. That is what we promised in our manifesto, and we know how important it is to keep our promises, especially at Christmas. So, in the spirit of Christmas and the season of good will to all, I thank everyone again for their contributions and welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with all hon. Friends and Members across the House to ensure that we get the changes needed to give the gift of clean water to future generations. Finally, on behalf of the DEFRA Bill team, we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be broughht to a conclusion on Thursday 16 January 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading .

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:

(1) any increase attributable to the Act in charges or fees payable under any other Act; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Financial Inclusion: Rural Areas

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing her first Westminster Hall debate on such an important topic. Debates like this are very conversational; it is always nice when lots of people agree on the same thing. It is heartening when lots of people intervene and everybody agrees, so I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to these important issues that really matter to the lives of all our constituents.

Ensuring that individuals have access to the appropriate financial services and products that they need, when they need them, is a key priority for the Government. It is an essential part of improving household financial wellbeing and ensuring that everyone is able to participate in the economy and benefit from the Government’s inclusive growth agenda. I recognise that tackling financial inclusion issues is particularly important for residents living in rural areas who face specific geographical challenges in accessing financial services. In today’s debate, we have had good examples of the particular challenges that people face.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

We tend to think of the issue as being principally about people having access to cash, but in communities like mine, where a lot of cruise ships come in the summer, tour guides get tipped in dollars, euros and other currency. For that, they need access to a bureau de change, which in our case is effectively the post office. Having a full range of post office services is particularly important so that they can pay their money in. When the Minister talks to her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade about the future of Crown post offices, will she remember the range of potential impacts on local communities?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a good pitch for a cruise ship to visit his constituency. It was a good advertisement, and he made an important point about the role and importance of the post office. I am sure that it will be noted by the Department.

I know that many rural constituencies are concerned about the availability of cash, especially when they rely on it to pay for essential goods and services. We recognise how important that is for many vulnerable people. Arguments have been made by some—not by the Government—that people are using digital more and more, so there is less need for cash. However, we recognise that for some people it is the only way of paying bills and accessing funds. It is important that we continue to have it, because many rely on it for essential goods and services.

Although it is positive that data from the Financial Conduct Authority shows that over 98% of people in rural areas are within three miles of free-to-use withdrawal facilities, I understand the importance of ensuring that cash remains available for those who need it. The Financial Conduct Authority introduced its regulatory rules to protect access to cash on 18 September. In fact, under a previous Government I was on a Bill Committee debating that very issue, so I am pleased that we mandated access to cash.

The rules require the UK’s largest banks and building societies to assess the impact of the closure of a relevant cash access facility and put into place a new service if necessary. That ensures appropriate access to cash for those who need or choose to use it.

Lots of people asked about banking hubs. I should probably declare that I am getting a banking hub in my own constituency soon, which is very exciting. How do people get a banking hub in their constituency? I completely agree about face-to-face banking services. It is not just about accessing cash; it has a wider role to play. If someone is accessing banking facilities, it can be a way to spot financial crime and financial coercion as well, so it is important to have that.

The locations are independently determined by Link, the largest provider of the ATM network. When a cash service such as a bank branch closes, or Link receives a request directly from a community, Link assesses a community’s access to cash needs. A couple of people mentioned how they were not successful in their appeal for a banking hub. If people have already made a community request to Link and it has decided that no banking hub is needed, they can ask Link to review the decision within 28 days of the original assessment, stressing their concerns and evidence. I urge people to take advantage of that appeal process.

[David Chadwick]

Can the Minister clarify whether Link is covered by the growth duty, which requires regulators to consider the economic consequences of their actions? A point has been made a couple of times about the impact of these closures on local businesses.

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. Link is covered by the Financial Conduct Authority, which has a duty to promote growth. The criteria on which it bases its decision include whether there is a bank branch remaining, the population size, the number of shops on the high street, the distance to the nearest bank branch, the public transport links and the vulnerability of the population. I urge Members to appeal if they find themselves unsuccessful the first time around.

Alongside access to cash, I know that constituents are concerned about challenges in accessing in-person banking. As has been highlighted in this debate, that is particularly an issue for individuals living in rural areas, where in-person services are less easily accessed than in urban areas.

[Matt Rodda]

Does the Minister agree that an important point is that disabled and vulnerable people want to speak to another person? Getting advice and guidance from a qualified person who represents the bank and can help them with their banking is something that particularly concerns my constituents. It can also apply to small businesses, many of which want the ability to engage with bank staff to discuss their own financial matters.

[Emma Hardy]

I absolutely agree that that is important. On the issue of vulnerability, sometimes in-person services are a way in which financial coercion can be identified, which is always a huge concern. That is why the banking hubs are so important and the Government are committed to rolling them out. It is completely in character for my hon. Friend to highlight the need to support vulnerable people in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is working closely with the industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the UK, which will provide individuals who need face-to-face support with critical banking services. As I say, I am personally hugely supportive of the banking hubs.

We are taking further steps to ensure that individuals can access the financial services and products that they need. Last week—I was very excited about this—the Government announced a financial inclusion strategy to further tackle the problems of financial inclusion. The strategy will be supported by a committee that the Economic Secretary convened for the first time last week. The committee brings together consumer groups and the financial sector to consider a range of barriers to inclusion for excluded groups, focusing on key policy areas such as access to banking, insurance and affordable credit, another huge problem for vulnerable people.

It is clear that there are significant challenges that need addressing. A quarter of adults have less than £100 in savings. Over a million adults are unbanked. There is a reported £2 billion of unmet need for credit, and over 8 million people are struggling with financial debt. Under the financial inclusion strategy, the committee will be working with consumer groups and industry to develop a strategy, considering a range of barriers.

To tackle the long-term issues effectively, we need to listen to the voice of experts. That is why we have convened this group, which will be tasked with drawing on relevant expertise across the sector and on lived experience. We will also be listening to people on the ground, because this will require a joined-up approach across Government, the financial services sector and frontline organisations. We will be engaging widely on this agenda to ensure that the strategy considers a wide range of frontline perspectives.

The strategy will be published next year, following extensive work by the Financial Inclusion Committee to consider the barriers to access and solutions to address them. It is important that we take the time to get this right and seek input from those who are most affected by the issue of financial exclusion. That is why the Government have made clear our commitment to going further in tackling it. While that work is in its early stages, I know that the Economic Secretary recognises its importance to our constituents and will keep the House updated as it progresses.

I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset again. It has been a pleasure to participate in her first Westminster Hall debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating. There is a lot of support in this room for banking services, and a recognition of the importance of face-to-face services and access to cash. It is crucial for everybody in our society to have access to the financial services they need, regardless of where they live.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 28 October, form part of the Government’s commitment to implementing the border target operating model by ensuring that sanitary and phytosanitary controls are applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These controls are essential to maintaining the United Kingdom’s biosecurity and food safety, as well as focusing the benefits of unfettered access arrangements on qualifying Northern Ireland goods.

The draft instrument, which uses powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, has two main purposes. The first is to apply pre-notification and sanitary and phytosanitary certification requirements to goods that are not qualifying Northern Ireland goods and that are entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These requirements are consistent with those already applied to certain European economic area goods and those entering Great Britain from Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Faroe Islands and Greenland under the transitional staging period. This will mean that European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland are treated the same as such goods entering Great Britain through Ireland.

The second purpose of the draft instrument as to make consequential amendments to various pieces of sanitary and phytosanitary legislation. The definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods was amended earlier this year for food and feed goods. The consequential amendments in the draft instrument will ensure that the updated definition is reflected consistently across the regulatory framework.

Let me emphasise from the outset that the Government remain fully committed to ensuring unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the UK market. The Windsor framework Command Paper, which was published by the previous Government in February 2023, and the border target operating model, which was published in August 2023, clearly state that Northern Ireland businesses will have unfettered access when moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. The border target operating model also states that European Union and rest-of-world goods will be subject to sanitary and phytosanitary controls when moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. The approach adopted in this legislation is consistent with these commitments.

The draft regulations will not make any changes to the arrangements for moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods will not be required to undergo any of the controls implemented by this legislation and will continue to move freely within the UK internal market. Indeed, by applying controls to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland, these measures will more closely focus the benefits of unfettered market access on Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods. This will sharpen their competitive advantage.

The sanitary and phytosanitary controls applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland under the draft instrument are temporary. We will revoke the instrument when the transitional staging period, which allows for easements in the performance of official controls, ends. This is currently set at 1 July 2025.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

I note that the long-term approach to NI-GB movements is still being developed. Should that programme of work extend beyond the end of the current transitional staging period on 1 July, will we then perform an impact assessment for the draft regulations, given that an impact assessment has not been prepared for them because of the short period for which they are to have effect?

[Emma Hardy]

We will absolutely be looking at all options. I cannot predict what will have happened by 1 July 2025; the legislation currently states that that is when the transitional staging period will end, but as my hon. Friend notes, work is ongoing.

A longer-term approach for further controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland is yet to be implemented. The temporary nature of the draft instrument allows for biosecurity controls to be in place for those goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland ahead of that, although of course that is without prejudice to unfettered access protections granted to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. I must also highlight the fact that the draft instrument extends to England, Wales and Scotland.

I reaffirm the Government’s steadfast commitment to supporting the businesses and communities of Northern Ireland while safeguarding the integrity of the UK internal market. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee and look forward to hon. Members’ contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I recognise the significant strength of feeling and the concerns that hon. Members hold about the draft regulations. I have been scribbling away and will do my best to answer as many questions as I can, but if Members are not satisfied with the level of detail that I am able to give, I commit to ensuring that my officials answer any other detailed questions in writing; I put that on the record. I am a little surprised, however, that the official Opposition are raising criticisms, considering that the regulations are a consequence of the Windsor framework, which was negotiated by the previous Government. If they had had concerns, that might have been the point at which to raise them. I will do my best to answer the questions of Northern Irish colleagues, but if they feel that I have not given them the detail that they require, I commit to ensuring that we follow up.

The full and constructive points that have been raised reflect the importance of the legislation and the principles that it upholds of maintaining our biosecurity, supporting the smooth functioning of the United Kingdom internal market and honouring the commitments made and negotiated under the Windsor framework. The draft instrument will deliver the necessary provisions to ensure that Great Britain’s responsibilities on biosecurity and food safety are upheld, which will safeguard the health of our people, animals and plants. I strongly reaffirm and strengthen the Government’s unwavering commitment to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland continue to enjoy a unique position within the UK internal market.

I will cover as many as I can get through of the points that have been raised. I was asked about non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods. Non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods are any goods that fall outside the qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition, such as European Union and rest-of-world goods. For example, if goods have been moved into Northern Ireland from outside the UK, and one of the main purposes of that movement is to gain qualifying Northern Ireland goods status, in any subsequent move to Great Britain the goods are not qualifying Northern Ireland goods. Such goods do not benefit from unfettered market access. The draft instrument will ensure that they are subject to the relevant SPS and other controls on entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. That will ensure that the benefits of unfettered access are targeted on Northern Ireland, rather than on EU and rest-of-world goods.

[Sammy Wilson]

Since those checks do not cover the goods when they come into Northern Ireland, but only when they go into GB, what assurances can the Minister give to people in Northern Ireland that they will not be subject to dangers or disadvantages that the rest of the United Kingdom will not face?

[Emma Hardy]

My understanding of the situation is that that is a consequence of the Windsor framework and the desire not to have a hard border within the island of Ireland, but if I am incorrect I will get the right hon. Gentleman a proper answer.

I was asked why the instrument is temporary. It will be revoked when the transitional staging period expires; as we have said, it is currently scheduled to end on 1 July 2025. The timeline for the implementation of further controls on non-qualifying goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland has not yet been announced. We will provide a further update on that in summer 2025. I repeat my commitment to inform and keep up to date all Northern Irish Members of Parliament especially, so that they know exactly what is happening and when.

[Sammy Wilson]

The move towards the border control operating model started under the last Government. As several hon. Members have already indicated, it was chaotic: no one could give any answers about how it would operate. I am sure that we have all met traders in our constituencies, especially hauliers, who could not get answers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or any other Department. Will the Minister make sure not only that Northern Ireland Members are informed, but more importantly that businesses, which know the difficulties of operating under that model, are informed and have discussions with her?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. We will absolutely do our best to make sure that all businesses and Members of Parliament are fully updated.

The temporary nature of the draft instrument allows the Government to apply biosecurity controls to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland ahead of a longer-term approach.

I was asked about the long-term approach for the treatment of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods. The border target operating model outlines that the SPS import controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland will progress on a separate timeline. Further to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about businesses, we will continue to collaborate with the devolved Governments and all border stakeholders. We will support implementation readiness across vital points of entry to better protect UK biosecurity. We will communicate any additional updates well in advance to give traders time to prepare.

The UK Government will work closely with the devolved Governments to develop plans for the delivery of a long-term approach for the treatment of European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. These plans will continue to preserve the unfettered movement of qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain, whether those goods are moving directly from Northern Ireland to Great Britain or from Great Britain to Northern Ireland via Ireland.

I was asked whether the measure will give effect to an Irish sea border. The short answer is no, because the legislation applies only to sanitary and phytosanitary controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods are not required to undergo any of the sanitary or phytosanitary controls implemented by this legislation and will continue to move freely within the internal market. This sharpens the competitive advantage of Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods by more closely focusing the benefits of unfettered access on them. I reassure the hon. Member for Upper Bann that guidance will be provided with a sufficient lead-in time for traders; there was a similar concern about businesses.

The benefit of the regulations is that they will strengthen Great Britain’s biosecurity by delivering alignment in the treatment of European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. It is right that goods from the European Union and the rest of the world are treated differently from goods moving within the UK’s internal market. Additionally, the consequential amendments to the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods in existing legislation will ensure that the updated definition, which focuses the benefits of unfettered access more squarely on Northern Ireland traders, applies to the direct and indirect movement of such goods into Great Britain. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.

Sewage Discharges: South West

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this important debate and everybody who has intervened. May I also express my support and sympathy for Finley? It is awful to hear about children becoming ill when they are just enjoying the things that we enjoyed so much as children. I am genuinely sorry to hear about that.

As I have said before, the amount of sewage in our waterways is unacceptable—clearly unacceptable. For too long, the level of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas has been left unchecked. The south-west of England, with its 860 miles of coastline, is blessed with some of the most stunning waterways in the country, and it is of course vital that we protect these natural assets.

South West Water’s environmental performance is clearly not good enough. It continues to be rated as requiring improvement in the Environment Agency’s environmental performance assessment, and it has the highest rate of incidents on its network in the sector. So far, as the hon. Gentleman said, there have been 20 pollution incidents in his constituency, and they are clearly unacceptable.

Where companies have failed in their statutory duties to maintain their assets properly and protect the local environment, regulators will take appropriate enforcement action. The Environment Agency has informed me that 24 charges against South West Water currently await a court hearing, and many of them relate to discharges in North Cornwall. Of course, it is inappropriate for me to comment further on these while those proceedings are ongoing.

However, I am reassured that the new powers in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, including those relating to the monitoring of emergency overflows—I quite enjoyed the idea that we could call EDMs electronic dance music instead, and maybe that is what I will be thinking of in the future—will assist the Environment Agency with workload and efficiency relating to these types of offences. Two new dedicated inspection teams have been in place since October this year. Once officers are trained, the annual number of inspections in the region will double from the 335 they will carry out this year. I think that is positive action that has been taken by the Environment Agency.

Looking forward, South West Water is taking action to deliver necessary improvements. Subject to Ofwat’s final determinations, it is planning to invest about £750 million over the next five years to reduce sewage spills by 58% from current levels. It is also aiming to cut pollution incidents by 30%, and investing £140 million to reduce nutrient pollution in rivers. This investment will mean cleaner rivers, seas and lakes across the country—I am keeping an eye on the time this time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

On storm overflow guidance, in support of the forward investment to reduce pollution incidents, on 21 November the Government launched a consultation on updated information and guidance for the management and regulation of storm overflow infrastructure in England. A document will be published shortly afterwards to ensure that water companies have a clear forward framework to guide investment in storm overflow improvements.

The Government have also intervened to increase the transparency of pollution incidents to enable the public and the regulators to better hold water companies to account. We have included a duty in the Water (Special Measures) Bill to require all water and sewerage undertakers to produce annual pollution incident reduction plans, along with an accompanying implementation report. The chief executives will be personally responsible for approving both the pollution incident reduction plans and the accompanying document.

On the national storm overflows hub, the Government have legislated to require water companies to publish all discharge data from storm overflows in real time. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned the need to have one reliable source of data, which is incredibly important. Water UK launched its national storm overflows hub last Friday. If hon. Members have not had a chance to look at it, please do. On transparency, it is very good; in making us angry about pollution incidents, it is maybe not so good. However, we can see where companies are discharging all around the country, how long they have been discharging for and whether they are online or offline. For transparency, it is a huge step forward.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Although I am not from the south-west, I have the beautiful River Wharfe flowing through my constituency of Shipley. Until now, we have been relying for transparency on Top of the Poops, which shows that there were over 2,450 overflows of sewage pollution last year. Does the Minister agree that these are national problems, and we really need to tackle this not only with South West Water, but with the likes of Yorkshire Water, to make sure these sewage outflows stop in future?

[Emma Hardy]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I commend her for coming and raising that point. I completely support her.

[Richard Foord]

I am aware of the new storm overflow hub that the Minister talks about. My point is that sometimes the data that the new hub reveals is different to the data that the water companies are revealing on their apps, such as the South West Water WaterFit app. That was discovered by a constituent of mine in relation to Sidmouth last weekend.

[Emma Hardy]

I am more than happy to look into any anomalies, so if Members want to send through details of where there seems to be a discrepancy in the data, I can pick that up.

South West Water has 156 bathing waters, and I am hoping that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be pleased not only with our bathing water announcements on removing strict automatic de-designation, and removing fixed dates, but also that we are redefining the term “bathing” perhaps to include people who go surfing—I heard that he is interested in surfing. That will enable more people to enjoy the water environment. At the moment the term “bather” refers to people who swim, but we know that so many more people enjoy our beautiful water.

On 12 November DEFRA, jointly with the Welsh Government, announced a consultation on a package of potential reforms to bathing water regulations, and those changes will modernise the system to meet the needs of the public. The Government have been clear that there is no excuse for poor performance, and we will not look the other way while companies routinely fail to meet agreed standards. Water companies must take seriously their role in meeting public expectations and regulatory requirements, holding them to account when they fail.

Let me recap our three-stage approach to fixing the water industry. In the first week of the new Labour Government, the Secretary of State and I met water companies to secure agreement to amend their articles of association. Funding for vital infrastructure investment is ringfenced so that that money cannot go on bonuses—we saw evidence of that just last week. That money is for infrastructure improvement. There are new customers on the panels of water companies, as we are looking at changing the culture and giving customers a voice, and we are also strengthening protection and compensation for households.

The most significant increase in enforcement powers for regulators in a decade has come from the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will arrive in the House for Second Reading before Christmas—I am sure I will see many faces in that debate. Those powers include providing Ofwat with powers to ban bonuses, enabling regulators to issue automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, and there is also a duty on Ofwat to fulfil its environmental duties and legal requirements. The Bill will strengthen cost recovery powers to ensure that water companies bear the cost of enforcement activities.

The independent commission has been mentioned a few times, and it is needed to reform the whole water system. As we know, the system has developed incrementally since privatisation—I do not think anybody here thinks it is a system that we would wish to design in the way it has evolved. The call for public evidence will come in January, and as I have done before, I urge every Member across the House to get involved in that and find some evidence.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this important debate. Many of the points that have been raised this evening are issues we have all experienced, but I have found that South West Water’s communication and engagement with its customers has been atrocious over recent months. What more can the Government do to ensure that South West Water properly engages with its customers?

[Emma Hardy]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having to rearrange our meeting yesterday as I was visiting a flooded area. We will get that meeting back in the diary quickly. He is right to raise that issue as it is one of the reasons why we want to put customer representation on the water boards, and give customers that stronger voice. I am more than happy to follow that issue up with the hon. Gentleman and see what more I can do to support him. It is incredibly important that customers are treated with the respect they deserve, and if water companies are not doing that, I am more than happy to follow it up.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emma Hardy]

I have two minutes left so I will quickly finish if hon. Members do not mind.

The commission will be led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, supported by expert advisers, who will be announced shortly. It will be wide-ranging and report to the Government in the second quarter of 2025. The recommendations are intended to inform future legislation to deliver long-term reform to clean up pollution and return the sector to stability across England and Wales, including of course the south-west.

I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate. This is a really important issue. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to driving meaningful long-term improvement in the performance and culture of the water industry. We are committed to improving the health of our rivers, lakes and seas across England and the south-west. I look forward to working with all hon. Members who are interested in fulfilling that ambition with us.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. This statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 8 October, adds three additional substances—UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor —to the assimilated persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, regulations in response to the adoption of those three substances as POPs under the United Nations Stockholm convention. The UK is a party to the convention and is therefore obliged to reflect in UK law the listing of POPs under the convention.

In addition, the instrument makes a number of other technical changes to the annexes of the POPs regulation. Those include changes to waste concentration limits, specific exemptions and unintentional trace contaminant levels, or UTCs, for some POPs. In brief, the amendments update and clarify how some articles, substances or mixtures containing some POPs can be used, manufactured, placed on the market or disposed of. This legislative change is permitted by use of the powers available within articles 7, 15 and 18 of the assimilated EU regulation on POPs. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument.

POPs are substances recognised as particularly dangerous to the health of humans, wildlife and the environment. This instrument preserves and adds to the current regime for managing, restricting or eliminating POPs in the UK. Some of the regulations in this amending instrument are needed to implement the UK’s commitments under the United Nations Stockholm convention on POPs. The majority of amendments are informed by updates to the Stockholm convention and, in some cases, have come about following updates to the Basel convention guidance on the management of POPs waste, and following consultation.

Let me turn to the details of the instrument. At the 11th meeting of the conference of the parties, held last year, a decision was adopted to add three new substances called UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor to the list of substances for global elimination under the convention; this decision was communicated to parties by the UN depository in February 2024. This instrument adds those new POPs to the list of substances prohibited by law from being manufactured, placed on the market or used in Great Britain.

Secondly, the instrument provides some exemptions from the prohibitions by allowing the unintentional presence of the three substances at trace levels. These limits define the concentrations at which UV-328, dechlorane plus and metho—methox—

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister repeat that, please?

[Emma Hardy]

I will do my best—by the end of this, I’ll have nailed it.

These limits define the concentrations at which UV-328, dechlorane plus—I got that one—and methoxychlor can lawfully be found in a substance, article or mixture, where they are unintentionally present and found in minimal amounts. Dechlorane plus and UV-328 will also be listed alongside time-limited exemptions for their continued use in specific circumstances. These exemptions are available following agreement by the Stockholm convention’s conference of the parties.

This instrument will make a number of further changes to annex 1 of the POPs regulation, including the addition of a UTC level for two POPs already prohibited in Great Britain. It will also make amendments to the UTC limits and specific exemptions listed for the substance perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, including a provision to phase out or remove exemptions that are no longer required, and the tightening of the requirements regarding a specific exemption for use of PFOA in polytetra-fluoroethylene, or PTFE, micropowders.

Annexes 4 and 5 of the POPs regulation relate to the treatment of waste containing POPs. This instrument will add or update waste concentration limits for several POPs. In practice, those limits specify the concentration at which waste containing POPs must be diverted from landfill to high-temperature incineration or other appropriate disposals, to ensure that the POPs content is appropriately destroyed. Importantly, that includes the introduction of a limit specifically targeted at firefighting foam mixtures containing PFOA—a substance in the poly and perfluoroalkyl, or PFAS, group of chemicals—to ensure the environmentally sound disposal of any remaining stockpiles of these foams.

Finally, this instrument will update the maximum concentration limits for a number of POPs and add decabromodiphenyl ether, or decaBDE, a brominated flame retardant, to the list of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, in annex 5 of the POPs regulation. Maximum concentration limits set the threshold at which waste handlers can apply to permanently store certain wastes in designated landfill for hazardous waste or salt mines, where it can be demonstrated that destruction is not the environmentally preferred option. The instrument will also add two new European waste catalogue codes to this provision: one for fly ash from peat and untreated wood, and one for soil and stones.

Policy development informing this instrument was subject to a public consultation in 2023. In that consultation, we also stated our intention to prohibit the three new substances once they were adopted for listing under the convention, to implement our international obligations. There have been various opportunities, at both domestic and convention level, for UK stakeholders to submit information regarding the potential prohibition of UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor, and their potential adoption for global elimination under the Stockholm convention. A de minimis impact assessment was carried out, which concluded that there is no indication that the amendments in the instrument are expected to have an impact on businesses beyond one-off familiarisation costs, and that this instrument is not expected to disproportionally burden small businesses.

The Environment Agency is the delivery body for the POPs regulation for England; Natural Resources Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are the delivery bodies for Wales and Scotland respectively. They have been involved in the development of this instrument and have no concerns about implementation or resources. The territorial extent and application of the instrument is Great Britain. Under the Windsor frame-work, the EU POPs regulation applies in Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland were engaged in the development of the instrument and have consented to its being made on a GB-wide basis.

In conclusion, I emphasise that the measures in this instrument are needed, in part, to implement the requirements of the Stockholm convention by adding new POPs UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor to the list of substances prohibited in Great Britain by law. Other amendments included in the instrument ensure that the POPs regulation is adapted to scientific and technical progress in our understanding and treatment of POPs. The draft regulations will allow the UK to continue to implement the Stockholm convention requirements to prohibit, eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) for his contribution and look forward to seeing him in many debates in future. I commend him on having been able to pronounce the names of the chemicals first time around.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of forever chemicals, which concerns me; in time, I imagine that we will be discussing those in more detail. Obviously, we have outlined today all the details of what this particular statutory instrument relates to, but I definitely agree with his wider point on sharing concerns about POPs and forever chemicals. I hope that we can work together on that because the dangers and concerns about those chemicals are coming more to light as we move forward.

I will not detain the Committee for longer than necessary. As I have outlined, the instrument introduces changes to ensure that the UK can continue to implement its obligations under the Stockholm convention, which aims to protect the health of populations, wildlife and the environment from harmful persistent organic pollutants. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

International Treaty on Plastic Pollution

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Written Statements

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

Plastic pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges that the planet faces. The world produces 400 million tonnes of plastic waste each year. Scientists predict that there will be a threefold increase in the amount of plastic entering the ocean between 2016 and 2040. A global agreement on plastic pollution is urgently needed to co-ordinate a response to this complex issue.

United Nations Environment Assembly resolution 5/14 initiated discussions to agree an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. An intergovernmental negotiating committee was established with the ambition of completing its work by the end of 2024. The fifth and final planned meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee is being held in Busan, in the Republic of Korea, from 25 November to 1 December 2024.

The draft treaty under discussion includes provisions on production and consumption of primary plastic polymers; problematic products and chemicals of concern in plastic; product design; waste management; emissions and releases of plastic into the environment; existing plastic pollution; just transition; financial assistance, technology transfer and capacity building; implementation and compliance; national plans; reporting; effectiveness evaluation and monitoring; awareness raising, education and research; health and final provisions on processes necessary for the establishment of an international treaty.

The Government have an ambition to catalyse the transition to a circular economy and the treaty is one of the key levers available to us to achieve the systems-wide changes needed to make that a reality.

Plastic waste has for too long littered our streets, polluted Britan’s waterways and threatened our wildlife. This Government are committed to cleaning up Britain and cracking down on plastic waste. We will roll out extended producer responsibility to incentivise businesses to cut plastic packaging and the deposit return scheme to incentivise consumers to recycle.

The UK is an active member of the High Ambition Coalition, a group of 67 countries seeking an ambitious treaty that will end plastic pollution by 2040 by taking a full-lifecycle approach. At INC-5 we will continue to take a leadership role and work closely with other countries to push for agreement of an ambitious and effective treaty in Busan. The science tells us that in order to be effective we must take action at all stages of the plastics lifecycle, from production to waste management and emissions.

In developing the UK negotiating approach, we have worked closely with the devolved Governments and UK overseas territories, as well as a wide range of stakeholders, including producers, manufacturers, retailers, eNGOs and academia. On 6 November, I hosted a roundtable on the treaty for leading businesses and financial organisations, ahead of His Majesty’s international sustainability reception. Participants of the roundtable agreed a statement calling for an ambitious treaty that will create a more harmonised regulatory environment and a level playing field.

The UK remains committed to securing an agreement in Busan as a critical step towards ensuring the global action needed to end plastic pollution by 2040.

[HCWS247]

Global Plastics Treaty

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq. It is lovely to see you here. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this really important debate, and Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions. This is an important topic that people really care about.

This week, I had the most effective lobbying I have ever had; I was lobbied by 12 primary school children who came with a message in a bottle—they literally brought a bottle with a message and a petition from Greenpeace calling on me to do everything I can to secure plastic reduction. They too had taken part in the Great Plastic Count, and even the youngest, who was only seven years old, told me about all the plastic that they had. I just wanted to give a special mention to those children from Bonner primary school. This is Parliament Week, when we encourage young people to get involved in politics and understand how Parliament works, so it is a good time to engage with everybody across the country on this important issue.

[Sarah Dyke]

Carymoor Environmental Trust in my constituency runs fantastic plastic sessions and has educated over 58,000 children in Somerset about the environmental impact of plastic and about ways to avoid single-use plastic. Does the Minister agree that the best way to avoid single-use plastic is to deliver a global plastics treaty that meaningfully cuts plastic production?

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. The global plastics treaty, which I will talk about in more detail, is crucial, and it is really encouraging to see how everybody is getting behind it.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The Minister talked about being lobbied by children, and we all know how effective kids are when they lobby their MPs. I also want to mention the education work that The Deep in Hull does with children on plastic pollution, which is impressive, to put it mildly. On the topic of education, the University of Hull has recently carried out research showing that 8 million tonnes of plastic ends up in the sea, making up 80% of the debris in our oceans.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend. I am not meant to show bias, but The Deep is fantastic; we should all go and visit it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it does incredible work in educating children about ocean conservation, nature and plastic use. It is an amazing asset for the constituency I represent, and its work is highly regarded internationally.

I move on to talk about the treaty in more detail. After two years of negotiations, we are approaching the fifth and final scheduled meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, which starts on 25 November. The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Inger Andersen, has referred to this treaty as

“the most significant environmental multilateral deal since the Paris accord.”

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious treaty to end plastic pollution, and that is why an agreement at Busan this year is critical. If we are to stop plastic entering the environment at an increasing rate, we need a treaty that provides actions at all stages of the plastics life cycle. We are proud, as a country, to be a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution. That coalition includes more than 60 countries, and calls for an ambitious and effective treaty that will end plastic pollution by 2040. In September, the High Ambition Coalition published a ministerial statement calling for an ambitious treaty that covers the full life cycle of plastics, including design, production, consumption and end of life. Then, on 24 September, the UK signed the Bridge to Busan declaration, which makes the case for an ambitious treaty that includes upstream measures to ensure the sustainable consumption and production of primary plastic polymers.

It is critical that the new treaty on plastic pollution takes action across the entire life cycle, including production and consumption. The evidence is clear that we cannot solve the problem of plastic pollution unless we take action at every stage. Global plastic production is projected to double by 2050, reaching 800 million metric tonnes annually. Evidence shows that on current trends, waste management infrastructure will not be able to keep up with the pace of plastic production and consumption, and the level of mismanaged plastic waste will continue to rise. That is why the UK supports binding provisions in the treaty to reduce the production and consumption of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels, and to enable the transition to a circular economy.

To end plastic pollution, we need all actors in the plastics value chain to act. That includes national and local governments, and the private and financial sectors. We need to bring everyone along with us. That includes the marginalised, undervalued and unrecognised waste pickers, most of whom are women. They handle more than half the world’s plastic waste for recycling, so it is important that their voices are heard.

We have partnered with the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network to run the UK treaty dialogues ahead of each round of negotiations. The dialogues include actors at all stages of the plastic value chains, as well as from academia and environmental non-governmental organisations. Those dialogues have helped us understand the views on the treaty to inform our approach to negotiations.

On 6 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I, in conjunction with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, hosted a plastic pollution treaty roundtable for business leaders, retailers and financial institutions. We discussed the importance of agreeing an ambitious, legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Participants also signed a statement setting out the key elements that the treaty must include in order to end plastic pollution by 2040.

Many businesses and organisations are leading the way already. An example of this is the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which has been joined by more than 85 organisations, including major global businesses, financial institutions and NGOs. The UK scientific community is also world-leading and playing an active role in ensuring that the treaty negotiations are grounded in science, as well as developing the solutions and innovations that will help us take action on this issue.

However, we also recognise the importance of mobilising support for countries most in need, in order to implement the treaty, and this is an essential element of its effectiveness. We can end plastic pollution only through globally co-ordinated action and by mobilising and aligning financial flows from all sources, including all actors and stakeholders across the full plastics value chain at both the global and the local stage. The UK supports the use of the Global Environmental Facility to support the implementation of the treaty. It has established a track record of supporting environmental agreements on climate and biodiversity.

[Dr Opher]

Does the Minister know why there is no shadow Minister here to contribute to the debate for the Opposition?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

Okay. Thank you.

[Emma Hardy]

I have to say that this is one thing on which I believe there is cross-party consensus. There seems to be an awful lot of support for the treaty, and I hope that that unity continues, especially as we are going into incredibly difficult negotiations. It is really important for us as a country to stand united behind the treaty and what it means if we are not only to seek an agreement, but to ensure that it is fulfilled. I would like to hope that everyone agrees on how important this is, but I am an optimist—what can I say?

The UK is already the largest donor to the Global Plastic Action Partnership, which brings together Governments, businesses and civil society to tackle plastic pollution and increase investment in circular economy approaches in countries eligible for official development assistance.

I was asked what we are doing as a country to reduce plastic packaging. We plan to lay regulations on a deposit return scheme for drinks containers in England and Northern Ireland before Parliament in late 2024—hopefully before Christmas—for them to come into force in early 2025, assuming that parliamentary time allows. The planned launch date of the scheme is October 2027. If we are going to argue what other countries need to do, it is important that we are seen to be taking action ourselves. I really appreciate that companies—my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) mentioned one in her constituency—are promoting innovative and more sustainable solutions to plastic pollution, especially from single-use plastics.

Plastic pollution is one of the greatest long-term global challenges we face, and the UK is committed to working with the chair and members of the intergovernmental negotiating committee to reach an agreement. All parties are committed to seeking to conclude negotiations on the treaty by the end of 2024. We need to secure a robust, ambitious treaty to accelerate action at pace and scale, and that is what the UK team will be pushing for in Busan.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud again for securing the debate, and I thank everyone else who has supported it.

Question put and agreed to.

Flood Preparedness: Norfolk

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate and in particular the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing it in the first place. We are in danger of an outbreak of unity, which is always quite dangerous in Parliament, but I must say that every contribution has shown the importance of tackling flooding and why it means so much to each and every one of us.

A number of Members mentioned mental health. To be honest, one of the reasons I was so attracted to this brief to begin with is that I represent an area that suffered tragically from floods in 2007. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), is quite right to point out that, long after the flood water has receded and the blue lights have left, the mental health impacts continue. I should also welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. I have listened to his contributions to debates on environmental, farming and rural affairs issues, and I recognise his expertise, especially on veterinary issues, so it is a genuine pleasure to see him on the Front Bench.

A few Members mentioned the tragic situation that we have seen in Spain, which is a sobering reminder of how devastating flooding can be. I also thank the Environment Agency and everybody involved in addressing flooding.

I have been scribbling frantically, so I hope that I will cover as many points as possible and do that dangerous thing of actually answering some of the questions that have been asked. To begin with, am I going to make maintenance sexy? Well, I will do my best to make it sexy, and one thing we should look at is the flooding formula. We published a written ministerial statement just last week about how we allocate money for flooding, one aspect of which is looking at maintenance. Previously, the focus has been on the number of new properties protected, such that maintenance has, I think, been neglected. I urge hon. Members to look at that statement if they have not already seen it.

When we talk about the budget, I am very keen to talk about building new defences and maintaining existing defences. As for natural flood management, I love it. One way to get on my good side is to start talking about SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—or natural flood management, so I am feeling very happy now. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) is quite right about how they deliver in terms of affordability, nature and flood protection. I am a huge fan.

The Environment Agency will shortly publish an update to “Working with Natural Processes—Evidence Directory”, which will provide access to information that explains the benefits of natural flood management. The Environment Agency is also working to develop a natural flood management benefits tool that aims to provide a nationally consistent way of assessing both flood risk and the wider benefits of NFM projects. In the past, one of the difficulties in getting these flood projects off the ground has been in calculating the benefit of NFM. If we can agree a consistent approach to how NFM will work, hopefully we can encourage more people to get involved with it. The Environment Agency plans to publish the high-level method and assumptions on which the tool is based soon, so watch this space.

Insurance has also been mentioned. I urge the hon. Member for North Norfolk to look at Build Back Better, because people who frequently have to claim on their insurance should be able to receive an extra £10,000 from their insurer through Build Back Better. If someone’s insurer is not offering that, because they are in an area that is frequently flooded, their insurance is probably underwritten by Flood Re, and therefore they should be entitled to that.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Homes built since 2009 are excluded from the Flood Re insurance scheme, leaving many people without affordable insurance or indeed any insurance at all. When the Deputy Prime Minister talks about unlocking house building, the Minister will understand why my constituents are concerned that that means they will see more building on flood plains. Does the Minister agree that that would be farcical?

[Emma Hardy]

Well, no, because the Government are currently updating a lot of the planning rules for building homes. SUDS, which I mentioned earlier, will ensure that when building new homes, there is not increased flood risk either for the new homes being built or for existing homes in the area. That is why SUDS are so crucial.

Build Back Better should not just be available for people who have Flood Re; rather, it should be available for all insurers or people who are getting insurance. I want to make this mainstream. One of our concerns is that not many people know that they are able to claim this money or how to claim it. There are difficulties around some of the products, but the example that the hon. Member for North Norfolk shared—about why we would put plugs back in a low place when the property will get flooded again—is exactly where the Build Back Better money could be used: to put the plugs into a different place. I am more than happy to give more details on that.

We have mentioned the importance of mapping. I have good news. [Interruption.] Again, Sir Christopher, there is an outbreak of unity. The good news is that fairly soon we will launch something called NaFRA2, which is basically maps for the whole of England that look at the flood risk for all different types of flooding, including, for the first time, surface water flooding—previously, it has just been river and tidal. Importantly, it will look at future flood risk—so not only the risk of flooding right now, but how the flood risk will change according to climate change. That is incredibly important, so watch this space.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). She has met with me a few times, championing the needs of her constituents, and I know how welcome they will find her consistent lobbying. I hope that she will look at the flooding formula review and how it can impact areas such as Lowestoft or areas that have coastal erosion, and feed back to me on that.

I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) that if there was ever an issue that unites us, it is this—how good to hear that. I am quite interested in having a look at his Bill, and definitely at catchments as well. The independent review will have a look at catchments. It will look more at water quality but, of course, looking at a catchment solution helps with flooding. I will come back to internal drainage boards. I have been promised a culvert named after me if I do something good on this—

[James Wild]

Multiple!

[Emma Hardy]

Sorry, I have been promised multiple culverts. I have two challenges then: I need something named after me and I need to make maintenance sexy. This is indeed a good debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about the importance of drainage boards. I spoke at the Association of Drainage Authorities conference recently, and I was pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned the £50 million we are giving to them. We recognise that they would have been unable to spend the £50 million by April, so we are splitting that money over two years, which is one of the things that the IDBs wanted to pursue. We are also looking at how internal drainage boards are funded—a piece of research is currently looking into that. I agree that they are incredibly important. I was interested to hear about the Welney Flood Watch team, which was a great example of what volunteers can offer and how much they do in this space. A number of Members mentioned the importance of volunteers.

I have not been able to use the speech I wrote, but never mind. I would encourage people to please get in touch with their local area directors from the Environment Agency. If people give their personal phone number, I promise that they will not be spammed, but the agency will get in touch. If there is a flood, it is guaranteed to be at 8 pm on a Friday night, when people have had a glass of wine, so please pass that on and make sure that they can get in touch.

I want to reassure Members about funding. We are investing £2.4 billion over the next two years to improve flood resilience by maintaining as well as repairing and building flood defences—so maintaining is in there too. I reiterate that the Government are committed to delivering the oversight and long-term strategy needed to ensure that flood resilience is effectively delivered.

We have already taken decisive action by allocating additional funding for asset maintenance, as well as £50 million to internal drainage boards and £60 million to eligible farmers. The really good news for farmers is that the money should be arriving in many of their accounts tomorrow. That is a positive message to take away. We are taking the first steps to review the outdated funding formula and creating the new multi-agency flood resilience taskforce. I am afraid I do not have time to speak about the flood resilience taskforce, other than to say that many different agencies are involved in the taskforce to co-ordinate preparation ahead of the winter flood season.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered flood preparedness in Norfolk.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

14. What progress the floods resilience taskforce has made on protecting at-risk communities from flooding.

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

I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing sympathy with the communities of the Valencia region and across Spain following the dreadful flooding.

This Government’s floods resilience taskforce marks a new approach by national, regional and local government, and by flood risk partners, to better co-ordinate flood preparedness. It met on 12 September, with 40 attendees from 27 organisations agreeing actions including sharing learning from recent floods. This Government will invest £2.4 billion over the next two years to improve flood resilience by maintaining, repairing and building flood defences. Yesterday, at the Association of Drainage Authorities conference, I announced that we will allocate a further £50 million to the internal drainage boards.

[Dr Gardner]

I also send my best wishes to the citizens of Valencia and the surrounding region.

As the Secretary of State knows very well, the village of Upper Tean is frequently affected by flooding and sewage discharges. After visiting the Environment Agency, it was suggested that the parish council should set up a flood action group to help to tackle the causes and prevent further impacts of flooding. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for flooding meet me to discuss the support they can offer to the village in setting up a flood action group?

[Emma Hardy]

I was delighted to hear that the village is proactively setting up a flood action group. Of course, I appreciate the wonderful work that my hon. Friend is doing to support the village. The Government fully support collaboration between risk management authorities, including local Environment Agency teams and local communities, and we are committed to hearing from people on the ground via the new taskforce. Of course, I would be happy to meet them.

[Andrew Pakes]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer. We talk a lot in this House about extreme weather and flooding, but we do not talk enough about the vital role that our internal drainage boards play in protecting and keeping safe our agricultural land and farming. I welcome the Government’s inclusion of the internal drainage boards on the taskforce, and I welcome the money that the Minister put into the system yesterday. That is in stark contrast with the first actions of the 2010 Conservative Government, who cut flood defences by a horrifying 27%.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the work of my internal drainage board and outline how she will work with it in future?

[Emma Hardy]

I was delighted to speak at the Association of Drainage Authorities conference yesterday, to champion its work and to announce that, after listening to it very carefully, we will provide £50 million over two years—[Interruption.] In answer to the chuntering, the first part has already been spent.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Many of my constituents who live south of Salisbury are concerned about the interaction between flood risk assessments and new house building. Will the Minister assure the House that her work is fully integrated with the Government’s house building plans so that people can be reassured that, when land is designated for building new homes, flood risk is properly taken into account so that house building is restricted if there are no mitigations in place?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of ensuring adequate flood protection when we build new homes. Yesterday, we announced a review of the flood funding formula. We will be looking at nature-based solutions and sustainable urban drainage systems, so I hope that offers him some reassurance.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the flood victims in Spain.

Flood victims in Tenbury Wells were concerned to see in the Budget Red Book that capital spending on flood defences is under review. Will the Minister tell the House whether the bid that she will be making to the spending review for flood defences will be higher or lower than it is currently?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady and I have met many times to discuss the issue of flooding. I can reassure her that we will be investing £2.4 billion over the next two years to improve flood resilience by maintaining, repairing and building flood defences.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

5. What steps he is taking to help tackle unlawful discharges of sewage into waterways by water companies.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Protecting communities from flooding is a top priority. That is why we have launched the flood resilience taskforce and are investing £2.4 billion over this year and the next to improve flood resilience. We have also announced another £50 million investment into the internal drainage boards. I commend my hon. Friend for his work with local flood action groups, and I am keen to hear how the matter progresses throughout this Parliament.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

T6. Last year, the River Lambourn suffered 266 sewage spills from storm overflows, causing irreversible harm to a rare chalk stream. Will the relevant Minister meet me urgently to discuss plans to address that in Newbury?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), for coming back to me about the River Hipper scheme, which is of huge importance in my constituency. May I invite her to come to Chesterfield to meet people affected by the flood and see the Holymoorside scheme, which could make a real difference?

[Emma Hardy]

It is always a pleasure to work with my hon. Friend, and I know how passionately and well he campaigned for his community during the last floods, and how deeply the situation moved him. Of course I would be more than happy to continue to work with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

On 2 and 3 November, a massive burst water main in my constituency left 8,000 homes without water for more than 12 hours. The response of the water company, South Staffs Water, was slow, ineffective and secretive. Will the Minister remind South Staffs Water, and all water companies, of their responsibilities to help residents and work with local stakeholders following an incident?

[Emma Hardy]

What a tireless champion my hon. Friend has been in campaigning on this issue. She is quite right to feel offended by the poor level of communication she has had from the water company, and I hope that it hears the message loud and clear that water companies need to work with, and communicate more effectively with, Members of Parliament in the areas that they represent.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

This week, John McTernan, an adviser to Tony Blair, publicly stated that farming should be treated in the same way that Margaret Thatcher treated the miners, and that it was an industry the country could “do without”. As a farmer, I find this incorrect, offensive and deluded. Does the Minister agree?

Flood Resilience

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Written Statements

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

The Government extend their deepest sympathies to the citizens of Valencia and more widely across Spain, where recent floods have had devastating impacts on communities, including the tragic loss of more than 200 lives. These events are a stark reminder of the challenges we face in a changing climate.

This Government set up the first ever Floods Resilience Taskforce, on 12 September. The taskforce marks a new approach to preparing for flooding, and working between national, regional and local government. It brings together Ministers and stakeholders, including DEFRA, MHCLG, Home Office, Cabinet Office, mayoral offices, the Environment Agency, the Met Office, devolved Administrations, local resilience forums, emergency responders, and the National Farmers Union, among others.

As announced at the autumn Budget 2024, the Government will invest £2.4 billion over two years to improve flood resilience and better protect communities across the country, including from coastal erosion.

But this Government inherited an outdated funding formula for allocating money to proposed flood defences. Established in 2011, the existing formula slows down the delivery of new flood schemes through a complex application process, and also neglects more innovative approaches to flood management such as nature-based approaches and sustainable drainage.

To speed up the delivery of new defences and ensure that the challenges facing businesses and rural and coastal communities are adequately taken into account, a consultation will be launched in the new year which will include a review of the existing formula. We also want to ensure that floods funding policy drives close partnership working and brings in wider financial contributions to flood schemes, to make Government funding go further.

Additional financial support will also be provided to rural communities, recognising the significant impact of flooding on farmers, and £50 million will be distributed to internal drainage boards—the public bodies responsible for managing water levels for agricultural and environmental needs in a particular area.

This transformational investment will put IDBs on a firm footing to deliver their vital role in flood and water management for years to come. IDBs that submit successful bids will be able to spend the £50 million on projects over the next two years. This will benefit projects that will improve, repair or replace IDB assets, including flood barriers, embankments and maintenance of watercourses. The funding will support projects which reduce risks and impacts from flooding to farmer and rural communities across England. The Environment Agency has begun work with IDBs to distribute the funding from today.

This follows confirmation of payments to farmers impacted by last year’s severe weather through the farming recovery fund. A total of £60 million will be distributed to eligible farmers, via recovery payments of between £2,895 and £25,000 to around 13,000 farm businesses. Payments are expected to land in farmers’ accounts from 21 November.

Taken together, the measures announced today will deliver meaningful change for communities across the country. They represent a significant package of funding and a promise of reform which show that this Government will continue to act to ensure people are better protected from flooding right across the country.

[HCWS214]