Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to improve flood defences in Hartlepool.

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

After 14 years, the Conservatives left our flood defence assets in the worst condition on record. That is why this Government are investing a record £2.65 billion over two years to improve flood resilience. We will build, maintain and repair flood defences to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.

[Mr Brash]

The flood defences in and around Greatham creek in my constituency of Hartlepool date back to the 19th century and are coming to the end of their usable life. I am campaigning to secure the funding we need to realise the Environment Agency’s ambitious multimillion-pound plan to upgrade these defences and create a new habitat that extends biodiversity in that area. Will the Minister commit to delivering that funding for Hartlepool?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and for his recent letter. He is right to be angry about the poor state of his flood defences, and I am sure his constituents value him as a local champion, raising that in the Chamber. To rebuild after Conservative failure, we have had to urgently move £36 million into maintenance funding this year. As I have mentioned, the projects to receive funding in the next financial year are being agreed and will be announced shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Under the previous Government there was, prior to 2019, a strategy from Westminster to address flooding and coastal erosion across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All the regions were able to benefit from that, including my constituency of Strangford, where coastal erosion is a massive thing, taking away some of the major roads and thoroughfares. Will the Minister consider renewing that strategy and starting it again, looking at all of the United Kingdom as one job lot? That would thereby help us all to get the benefit in addressing coastal erosion and the flooding that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) referred to.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for raising his concerns about coastal erosion, and he is right. It is a huge problem, and with climate change it is only set to get worse. I completely recognise how it is impacting coastal communities. His suggestion to bring together the different devolved Governments to discuss this issue is really interesting, so let me take that away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The people of Chesterfield have great empathy with the people of Hartlepool, as we face exactly the same issues. A new report by Public First shows that each year of flood events causes decade-long downward pressure on the economy worth up to £6 billion. I am grateful that the Minister will shortly visit us in Chesterfield to see flood projects and vulnerabilities, but does she agree that there is acute need for projects like the one we require on the River Hipper, and the one required in Hartlepool? It endangers the Government’s growth mission if we are not able to get these projects going.

[Emma Hardy]

I think we all have empathy with Hartlepool, so I encourage more people to ask questions on this issue. I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency to find out more about the projects he mentions. He is quite right to say—this is an argument that I hope we will all pursue ahead of the spring statement—that tackling flooding is a good, value-for-money investment, because it helps to protect our economy and ensure that we can have growth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Wera Hobhouse, who I know is now anxious.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Like people in Hartlepool, we in Bath recognise that the Conservative Government left our flood defences in a poor state, and we welcome the extra funding that the Bath flood defence scheme has received. However, we worry that it has come too late in a lot of cases. Is there a timeline for when my Bath constituents will actually see improvements?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. As I said, we are delivering a record £2.65 billon investment in building, maintaining and upgrading flood defences, and that money will be spent over the next two years. We will shortly announce some of the projects that are going ahead in the next financial year, and next year we will announce even more. There will be an announcement this year for the next financial year, and an announcement next year for the second half of the two-year record investment. That shows out commitment to building, maintaining and improving flood defences up and down our country.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to protect flood-prone communities in Cumbria.

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

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

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I thank the Minister for her answer. Communities in Cumbria have seen many devastating floods over the last two decades, but flood action groups in Keswick have worked hard with United Utilities to develop a scheme that uses Thirlmere reservoir as a storm water store, helping to prevent flooding in the town. All agree that more could be done. Although I applaud their work, I note that there is no statutory requirement for water companies to use their assets as flood defences. Will the Minister look at how water companies’ assets can be used to prevent flooding across the country?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

The Conservative Government protected over 600,000 properties from flooding, introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and committed to a £5.2 billion investment in flood protection. However, we know that the mental health impacts of flooding remain long after the waters subside. Rural communities face unique challenges, including outbreaks of diseases such as avian influenza and foot and mouth—a clear and worrying threat, given the recent cases in Germany and Hungary. Unfortunately, this Labour Government are exacerbating such stresses with their family farm tax and by scrapping the farming resilience fund, which supports mental health. Can the Minister confirm, for the sake of mental health, what support will be offered to rural communities in place of the scrapped fund?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

8. If he will take steps to implement the provisions of the Environment Act 2021 on deforestation due diligence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What steps he has taken to help protect communities that are vulnerable to flooding.

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

Repairing and rebuilding our flood defences is a priority for this Labour Government, and we are investing at a record level to improve flood resilience, better protecting 52,000 properties by this time next year.

[Patrick Hurley]

The Environment Agency allocates its budgets to carry out work on flood defences on the basis of a funding formula, but that formula does not give sufficient weight to agricultural land. Will the Minister undertake a review of the formula, so that agricultural land gets the flood defences it needs?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I completely agree that the previous flooding formula did not work for rural communities, which is exactly why we are consulting to change it. The consultation will be announced shortly, and I encourage him and every Member across the House to get involved in shaping the formula, so we can make sure it delivers the right outcomes for everybody up and down our country.

[Jo Platt]

First, I thank the Minister for visiting Lilford in Leigh after the devastating new year’s day flooding. We had a public meeting on Saturday, and three months after those floods, residents are still struggling to get any real progress from their insurance companies, while others face extortionate premiums and excess fees. What discussions is the Minister having with the insurance industry on improving how they support residents?

[Emma Hardy]

It was a pleasure to see my hon. Friend and see how tirelessly she was championing and supporting her local constituents after such a devastating flood. Concerns around flood insurance have been raised, so the floods resilience taskforce is setting up an insurance sub-group, through which some of its members will deep-dive into the challenges and opportunities for improvement on flood defences. If she has any further evidence that she would like me to look at, it would be very helpful to receive it.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

11. What discussions he has had with Thames Water on its financial viability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

My constituents in Burghfield Bridge have suffered for years with the devastating effects of flooding, and are rightly frustrated that nothing is being done. Will the Minister meet me to discuss flood resilience and better join-up of local agencies in Burghfield Bridge and across my constituency?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for raising concerns around flooding; we have today heard about those concerns up and down the country. I would, of course, be happy to meet her.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

T5. After many years of rising costs for Scottish pubs, they now face being unfairly caught up in the double jeopardy of extended producer responsibility, as bottles going to pubs are being classed as household waste by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, even though almost no glass bottles delivered to pubs end up in household waste. Given the extremely tight margins on producing bottled beer, the situation threatens to cause serious harm to this part of the industry. Will the Minister consider an EPR exemption for pubs and other hospitality venues, or some kind of easement to help the situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

We are blessed to be nestled between the beautiful River Adur and the sea in my constituency, but that leaves us prone to flooding. Last year, my constituents in Shoreham found their homes and businesses flooded. I welcome the Government’s £2.65 billion for flood defences and must stress the importance of East Worthing and Shoreham getting its fair share of that funding. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will announce funding allocations for local flood defence projects?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. We are taking decisive action to halt the steady decline in the condition of flood defences that we saw under the previous Government, including shifting an extra £108 million into maintenance. We will announce further projects in due course.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

I recently visited New Sheepfold Farm in Ingleby Greenhow to see the great work that the Day family are doing to diversify their farm, help nature recovery and improve enjoyment of our rural area. They did this with the help of the North York Moors National Park Authority and the farming and protected landscape scheme, which I am glad the Government have extended for a further year. Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of family farms, such as that of the Days, in landscapes such as the dales and the moors, and will he ensure that they remain at the forefront of Ministers’ minds?

Bathing Water Regulations 2013: Government Response to Consultation

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Written Statements

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

In November last year, the Government, jointly with the Welsh Government, announced the consultation on reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, in the first shake-up to our bathing waters since the regulations were introduced. These reforms include removing strict automatic de-designation, amending the designation process to include feasibility of improvement as a criterion for designation, and moving the current fixed dates of the monitored bathing season into guidance.

The Government received clear public support for their proposed three reforms, nine technical amendments, and two wider reforms. These reforms align with the recommendations made in the Office for Environmental Protection’s report on the implementation of the Bathing Water Regulations 2013. We now intend to proceed with their implementation. We will also begin robust research and development on the wider reforms to see how they can best be implemented in future. DEFRA will work closely with the Environment Agency to ensure the new measures are implemented effectively and innovatively.

We are also reopening the bathing water application window in 2025. From May, communities in England can apply for new bathing waters, meaning that some additional sites may be designated ahead of the 2026 season. Prospective sites will be assessed against the Government’s newly reformed standards, set to become law later this year. Further details of the application process will be published in guidance at the start of the 2025 bathing season.

Updating bathing water regulations is part of the wider action the Government are taking to fix our water system. To meet the scale of the challenge, and deliver transformational change, the Government last year launched an independent commission into the water sector to review its regulatory system. On 27 February, the commission launched a wide-ranging call for evidence, which is open for views from all interested parties until 23 April. The commission is focused on recommendations to strengthen the water sector and the regulatory framework, whereas the planned reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 are focused on specific improvements to the operation and management of the bathing water system, so that more people have the opportunity to experience the benefits of our beautiful waters.

[HCWS516]

River Wandle Pollution

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 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, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for bringing forward this debate about this beautiful-sounding river. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for contributing to this important debate, as well as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and I could of course never forget the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) .

When we have any debate on water and water quality, there is so much interest from constituents, organisations and from hon. Members. I wholeheartedly share the upset and outrage of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington over the diesel spill. He is absolutely right to feel upset about it. This is one of England’s most beautiful chalk streams. It is a fast-moving river passing through sites of natural importance as well as sites of urban development. I wholeheartedly agree that this was an appalling thing to happen to the river.

It is really important to understand why it happened and what we can do to prevent it from happening again. I understand that the situation along the river continues to improve, with environmental impacts steadily reducing, but I want to be absolutely clear that we will not let any organisation get away with illegal activity, and where breaches are found, the EA will not hesitate to hold companies to account or work with partners as needed. DEFRA works closely with the Environment Agency to ensure it is equipped to carry out its functions effectively and deliver for the public and the environment, with Environment Agency officials at every level to provide constructive challenge and support on Environment Agency performance and delivery.

I have a timeline of exactly what happened on the day. One of the questions was about when people were made aware. On Tuesday 18 February at 8.19 am, London Fire Brigade was notified and arrived on the scene. At 8.32 am, the Environment Agency received a report from the London Fire Brigade of a diesel oil spill from a bus depot storage tank. Nine minutes later, at 8.41 am, the EA duty officer initiated a response and a decision to deploy to the site. At 10 am, the first Environment Agency officer was on the site, and further EA officers were on the site at 12 noon. I thank the Environment Agency: it was made aware of it at 8.32 am, and by 10 am, it had people at the river carrying out an investigation. It has done an exceptionally good job at working at pace.

I understand that, at 6.19 pm, the Environment Agency sent its first email to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington with information about the incident and the actions that it took. Between 19 February and 26 February, the Environment Agency’s response was ongoing; that included regular on-site monitoring, assessment of the clean-up and the environmental impacts, and ongoing briefings and liaison with partner organisations. It has specialist contractors working on the remediation efforts, and I understand that it updated the hon. Member at 9.45 am on 19 February and that another meeting was requested on 21 February.

The incident response concluded on Wednesday 26 February, when the Environment Agency sent its final updates to partners. It is now in the investigation phase, having moved out of the emergency response phase. It has acted at speed and with integrity, and it has done an incredible job. Its enforcement options range from warnings to prosecution or an enforcement undertaking. That is a civil sanction whereby the offender proposes steps to remediate the issue. The punishment depends on the assessment.

I totally agree on the polluter pays principle. The Environment Agency can recover costs from emergency incidents under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991. All costs incurred by the Environment Agency through doing this enforcement work can be recovered. On the wider point on polluter pays, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which got Royal Assent last week, included cost recovery not just for emergency responses, as already existed, but for water companies. I know that, in this case, it was not a water company that was responsible, but sewage pollution has been mentioned. Anywhere that the Environment Agency investigates sewage pollution, all costs can now be fully recovered from the water company.

A question was asked about what happens to the fine moneys. Ofwat are responsible for collecting fine money and, in some cases, that fine money is refunded to customers. In other cases, that fine money is available for environmental aspects. The ratio of how much is refunded to customers is a decision for Ofwat.

A point was made about the problems of run-off. Obviously, there is another one that has not come up in this debate but is also a concern—agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. All those things are being looked at under the Cunliffe review—we have only seven weeks left now for people to respond to the call for evidence. I hope people will look at the document and make their points. There is a 200-page call for evidence, but also a 20-page executive summary, so people can look at the summary. It is not just for Members of Parliament. If I may address those in the Public Gallery, it is for anybody to respond and give their opinion on how our water system should fundamentally work.

We are serious about this. We are taking action and looking at how we can increase polluter pays through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but there will be cost recovery because this is considered an emergency. In terms of what more can be said at the moment, we have to let the Environment Agency do its investigative work. When it comes to its conclusion it will determine what level or type of prosecution happens.

I want to reiterate that we agree that what happened with the River Wandle is deeply concerning and unacceptable. Again, I thank the Environment Agency for acting within an hour and a half of being informed and having people on the ground to carry out that investigative work. This Government will not turn the other way and continue to allow our rivers, lakes and seas to be polluted. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Independent Water Commission, future legislation and many other actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a comprehensive reset of the water industry. We intend to drive long-term transformative change through the entire water sector, and we have only just got started.

Question put and agreed to.

Bathing Water Regulations

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.

I feel that we are having a little bit of a love-in this afternoon, which is always a nice way to start. Of course I will be more than happy to pass on the thanks from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), to the team who have worked on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this really important debate. There is so much agreement in the room that I almost wonder whether we are still in the House of Commons. I will certainly try to cover most of the points that have been made.

Just to set the issue in context, we completely accept and believe that the water system at the moment is broken. That is why, when we first came into office, we changed the articles of association to put customers and their opinions into the water boards. It is why we are doubling the compensation for people who face water outages. It is why we have ringfenced money so that it cannot be diverted from infrastructure improvements and into bonuses. It is why we have the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which just came into force and got Royal Assent last week—because we know that the system as a whole is broken. It is also why, just last Thursday, I was in Manchester with Sir Jon Cunliffe, launching the call for evidence on water. I strongly urge every Member here to respond to that call for evidence. There is a huge, 200-page consultation document that goes with it but, just because we are kind, there is a 20-page executive summary as well, so please have a look at that, respond to the consultation and make some of these points there.

Bathing waters in and of themselves are not under the water commission. The reason for that is that I wanted to do something on bathing waters really quickly; I did not want it to get delayed by the water commission when we already knew some of the things that we wanted to look at. I will quickly go over some of the things that we are looking at changing. At the moment, the regulations are one size fits all. I would like to reassure people talking about the dates around bathing waters. Obviously, we will officially respond to the consultation; there will be an official Government response, but so far I have yet to see put forward any evidence that seems to indicate that there is a wish to shorten the bathing water window. In fact, most people are advocating to keep it the same or extend it, recognising that some people go swimming all year round.

This is the perfect point at which to mention my mum, who has decided to do open water swimming and swims all year round, and now has her own wetsuit. I think it is amazing that she has discovered open water swimming in her retirement—slightly crazy, but definitely amazing. As I said, we will obviously have a formal response to the consultation, but so far I have not seen anybody advocating shortening the bathing season. I wanted to make a point of mentioning that.

On the de-designation points, I wholeheartedly accept the points made by the spokesman for the official Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats that it would be an incentive for companies not to invest in improving the water if they knew that after a certain number of years it would be de-designated—although of course I must add the proviso that we have not officially responded to the consultation. However, from looking at what we have had so far, that is certainly what I am feeling.

I also want to address this point. I am sure that it was not intended, but I wondered whether it was coming through that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water in an area. I do not accept that, because if we are saying that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water, that means that we are also almost accepting, on the flip side of that, that if people do not have bathing water status, we are okay with their water being completely polluted.

We are not okay with that. We want to clean up all our rivers, lakes and seas, and we have a plan to do so. We have £104 billion of investment going into the next five years. We are looking at what is happening in bathing waters, and looking at iconic sites around the country. The argument that somewhere needs to have bathing water status or its waters will remain polluted, is one that I challenge head on. That argument almost accepts that we are okay with things remaining polluted. No—we should focus on something much bigger than that, which is how we clean up all of our rivers, lakes and seas, especially looking at bathing waters.

There is a major public health aspect here. It is an important point, and it is why I am delighted that Sir Chris Whitty is one of the expert advisers on the Cunliffe review looking at this. An argument is being made that asks why we are setting a standard, as if to say, “If they are really poor, we don’t want to allocate them as bathing sites.” We should pause and think about that for a moment because, as was illustrated by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), if we are saying something is a bathing site and we give it bathing water status, it implies that it is safe to bathe there. If we designate a site that we know will not be safe for many years to come, and would take a huge amount of investment to become safe, is it right to call that a bathing water site and imply that people are safe to bathe there?

So, I think the sensible and correct decision is to improve all our water everywhere through reforms, which is why we are doing the water review and why we passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Let us look at the areas that are likely to improve more quickly, and say to people, “You can bathe here, because it will improve more quickly and we can see rapid progress, but these other sites that you want to bathe in—if we think seriously—are not going to improve for a long time.” As a Government, we think that it would be irresponsible to call those sites bathing water sites when we know full well that there could be serious damage to public health.

[Pippa Heylings]

I wanted to clarify that there are two bodies of argument here. Given that there has been a complete lack of regulations and ways to enforce the “polluter pays” principle with water companies until now, status has been seen as one of the only mechanisms to do it. However, I would like the Minister to recognise that these are already bathing sites because the criteria is that they have to show that they are already being used as bathing sites—that they are recognised as culturally and ecologically important. Given that, even though they are poor we should be investing in them to ensure that they continue. We know that if they are declared poor, people are warned of that and therefore do not swim. So we are not subjecting people to unsafe water; we are recognising that these are key bathing areas and have historical, cultural and ecological importance—now and in the future.

[Emma Hardy]

I do not disagree in the slightest. To be completely clear, sites that are already designated as bathing sites of course need enhanced investment and support to improve them, even if they are poor at the moment. I was addressing the point about when we are looking to designate new sites, and answering the question why we are looking at core reform 2.

Again, I stress that we have not officially responded to the consultation. If we are looking at a site that we wish to designate in the future, which is of a really low quality, is it irresponsible to designate that site knowing that it will not reach for five to 10 years the standard it needs to reach? Like everything, that is a question for debate. But for sites that are designated at the moment, I agree that we should be putting extra investment into them even if they are poor.

I do not want to rehearse the many debates and discussions we have already had. There were 36 amendments, I think, to the Water (Special Measures) Act on Report.

[Tim Farron]

Forty-four.

[Emma Hardy]

Forty-four amendments! We had many debates and discussions during the passage of that Act. To rehearse an argument we have had many times before, the reason why we are not focusing on the volume of water coming out is simply because volume can be very diluted, and therefore not a great threat. There can be a small amount of incredibly toxic waste causing a huge amount of damage. I would like to see the investment going into water quality monitors. That is part of the next price review—how can we put water quality monitors in? They would measure whether it is a huge amount and it is dilute, or a small amount and it is toxic. We just want to know what damage is being done to the river. My focus is, and remains, on water quality.

There were some genuinely helpful suggestions from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about where to place those monitors for measuring water quality. That was a really helpful contribution. While I am paying credit to him, the way we describe it—how we say it is safe to bathe—was also a helpful suggestion.

[Joe Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Joe Morris]

The Government have moved quickly on this issue. Does the Minister recognise that it is important that we maintain an engaged and concerned public? I have met with the Wylam clean river group and with other concerned groups throughout my constituency along the length of the Tyne. One thing that continues to resonate with me is that these groups understand that this is a consistent piece of work, and that we need to be constantly iterating on making sure that our rivers do not just get clean, but remain clean into the future. The Government and the public need to consistently work in partnership.

[Emma Hardy]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he cares deeply about this issue and has spoken to me many times about the importance of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. I would like to think it is something that we are united on.

Many stakeholders, many people and many Members have called for bathing water regulations to be updated to reflect the new ways in which we are using our waters or falling into our waters, whatever it might be, and to continue to support public health outcomes. It would be irresponsible for us not to consider public health when we are thinking about designation.

We are a Government who listen. We are a Government who believe in co-production. We are a Government who actively engage. I encourage all Members to contribute to the water review. It is out there now; the consultation is only open for the next seven weeks, so please do not lose the opportunity to have your say.

I put on the record my thanks to all the environmental campaigners, Surfers Against Sewage and all those organisations involved in supporting our clean rivers, lakes and seas.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Minister made some points on the length of time it would take to get some popular sites up to standard. Would she consider a pre-designation status, so that those sites are not left on the shelf with no support whatsoever—so that we are recognising, as my hon. Friends have said, the importance of certain sites for sporting, cultural and historical reasons?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Well done for getting your mum in Hansard. I call Gideon Amos to say a few words to sum up.

Independent Water Commission: Call for Evidence

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Written Statements

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

A secure water supply is essential for every home and business throughout the country. It is the foundation of our economy, our communities and our global security.

This Government inherited a water sector in disrepair. The rivers, lakes and seas that we all love have record levels of pollution. Droughts are set to leave parts of the country facing significant water shortages by 2050, particularly in the south-east, and it is forecast that the UK will need to find an extra 5 billion litres of water a day to fill the gap between supply and demand. A rising population and the increasing impacts of climate change are putting strain on the water system.

The water sector needs a complete reset. That is why, in October 2024, the UK and Welsh Governments launched the largest review of the water sector since privatisation: an Independent Water Commission, chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and supported by a panel of experts.

This is the third stage in this Government’s strategy on water. It follows the Secretary of State’s immediate steps to better protect consumers when he came into office, followed by new legislation—the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. This was signed into law this week as the most significant increase to enforcement powers in a decade.

The Independent Water Commission will explore the further changes needed to deliver a robust and stable regulatory framework that serves customers and the environment, attracts the investment needed to clean up our waterways, and restores trust in the sector. It is part of this Government’s determination to tackle the inherited issues in our water system head-on.

Today, Sir Jon Cunliffe is launching a call for evidence. This invites views from the public, parliamentarians, environmental groups, investors and all other interested parties on future changes.

The call for evidence will be live for eight weeks, with Sir Jon due to provide a final report to both UK and Welsh Governments in the summer. Interested parties can read the relevant documents on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/independent-commission-for-water-call-for-evidence and share their views through DEFRA’s online consultation tool, Citizen Space.

The Commission’s final recommendations will shape further legislation that will transform how our water system works and clean up our rivers lakes and seas for good.

[HCWS475]

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on the draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025 in the Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee on 26 February 2025.

[Emma Hardy]

By using existing capital, Flood Re Ltd is keeping the increase to 18%, while its reinsurance costs are expected to more than double. The reduction from £140 million a year to £135 million a year three years ago also demonstrates Flood Re Ltd’s commitment to its responsibility for keeping the levy as low as possible.

[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 26 February 2025; c. 4-5.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy):

[Emma Hardy]

By using existing capital, Flood Re Ltd is keeping the increase to 18%, while its reinsurance costs are expected to more than double. The reduction from £180 million a year to £135 million a year three years ago also demonstrates Flood Re Ltd’s commitment to its responsibility for keeping the levy as low as possible.

Draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 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 Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Vaz.

The regulations were laid before the House on 15 January. As most of the Committee will know, Flood Re is a reinsurance scheme that provides for accessible and affordable flood insurance for eligible households. This joint Government and industry initiative was launched in 2016, and it was designed to improve the availability and affordability of UK household flood insurance. For clarity, Flood Re Ltd is the name of the company established to administer the scheme.

Since its launch, Flood Re has provided for flood insurance cover to more than 500,000 households across the UK that are at risk of flooding. Before Flood Re, only 9% of policyholders with a prior flood claim could get flood insurance quotes from two or more insurers, and none could get quotes from five or more insurers. In 2023-24, 99% of households at high risk of flooding could obtain quotes from 15 or more insurers.

The Flood Re scheme has evolved since its launch back in 2016. When levy 1 was last reviewed in 2022, the regulations were changed to allow for Build Back Better to be included in the scheme, allowing for up to £10,000 to be offered as part of a post-flood claim to install flood-resilient measures at the property, helping to reduce the risk and impact of future flooding.

Flood Re has taken several steps to encourage take-up of its Build Back Better initiative, including running a series of workshops and developing a toolkit for insurers. I am pleased that insurers representing some 77% of the UK household insurance market are now committed to offering Build Back Better to their customers, whether or not they have policies ceded to Flood Re. All Members will know that this is something about which I care deeply, and I want all insurers to offer it before too long. I pressed home this point when I met industry representatives at my insurance roundtable last year. However, consumer influence is far greater than mine, so I encourage everyone to ask whether Build Back Better is included when considering or renewing their household insurance policy.

Of course, the Flood Re scheme is a joint initiative between Government and the insurance industry, and we are going further than the previous Administration to invest in flood defences. As part of this Government’s plan for change, a record £2.65 billion has been committed to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026. Maintenance of existing flood defences will also be prioritised, ensuring that a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. This means that a total of 66,500 properties will benefit from this funding, which will help to secure jobs, deliver growth and protect against economic damage. We will focus on fixing the foundations of the nation’s flood defences and giving communities confidence that flood defences will protect them.

We are reprioritising £108 million of investment towards repairing and restoring critical assets, including £36 million this year to target repairs at assets damaged by storms last winter and by ongoing flood events. A further £72 million will go towards continuing those repairs, and ensuring that assets are as resilient and reliable as possible, and that they operate as expected during flood events. We are also investing in new defences by making £140 million available to allow 31 schemes to progress to construction, ensuring that nearby communities are protected as soon as possible.

Returning to the specifics of this statutory instrument, Flood Re Ltd regularly and continuously monitors the risk in the market it is supporting to ensure it is in a position to continue enabling affordable flood insurance for those who need it. To do so, Flood Re Ltd is required to purchase reinsurance on a three-year basis. Taking into account changes in risk, claim profiles and the expected increase in the number of household flood insurance policies ceded to it, Flood Re Ltd has projected that its liabilities could increase from £2.1 billion to at least £3.2 billion over the next three years. That is the level of cover it needs to purchase.

In addition, the global reinsurance market has become more challenging since Flood Re Ltd last negotiated its three-year reinsurance cover. Events around the world have affected the risk appetite of those providing reinsurance, meaning that the market Flood Re Ltd can purchase from is both more volatile and more expensive.

All these factors combined have resulted in Flood Re Ltd proposing this increase to levy 1 so that it can afford to purchase its required reinsurance and continue to provide the access to affordable insurance that we all recognise the need for. I reassure colleagues that this proposal was well scrutinised before reaching the House for approval, not only by policy and financial officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but also by colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury. This scrutiny has been informed by the Government Actuary’s Department, which has advised that the increase to levy 1 is necessary to ensure the scheme’s viability. It will also minimise the risk of Flood Re needing to implement levy 2 on the industry.

I recognise that any increased insurance costs are unwelcome at any time. The cost of increasing levy 1 is spread across all insurance companies offering UK household insurance, proportionally based on their market share. Although this is an increase to the current annual levy 1, hon. Members will all recognise that it remains well below the £180 million a year that was in place when Flood Re was established. We can be confident that Flood Re Ltd has done its due diligence in seeking this increase, and we can be reassured that it would not be asked for if it were not needed. By using existing capital, Flood Re Ltd is keeping the increase to 18%, while its reinsurance costs are expected to more than double. The reduction from £140 million a year to £135 million a year three years ago also demonstrates Flood Re Ltd’s commitment to its responsibility for keeping the levy as low as possible.

In summary, this statutory instrument allows for a necessary change to the Flood Re scheme by amending regulation 8(2)(a) of the Flood Reinsurance (Scheme Funding and Administration) Regulations 2015 to increase levy 1 placed on UK household insurance providers, from £135 million a year to £160 million a year, from 1 April 2025. This change will allow Flood Re Ltd to manage its changing risk profile, and to continue to operate the scheme effectively for those who benefit from it—notably, those households that would otherwise find it challenging to secure flood insurance—while also ensuring that the total levy is no higher than needed. Failure to increase levy 1 from April 2025 risks undermining Flood Re’s ability to provide flood cover to UK households.

I emphasise that this statutory instrument is necessary to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of the Flood Re scheme and its ability to provide affordable flood cover for the increasing number of homes in the UK that are at risk of flooding. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As has been mentioned, flooding affects so many of us. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, was right to highlight its mental health impact; we are united on that issue. It is no surprise that there has been lots of interest in the regulations, and I will do my best to cover all the points that have been raised. Not all of them were directly related to the SI, but those that were not were on no less important issues.

The shadow Minister mentioned the desire for eligibility for the Flood Re scheme to be extended. There are no plans at this time to make changes to the scheme; however, we keep all policies, including those related to flood insurance, under review, and hon. Members’ observations in this debate—and, to be honest, at DEFRA oral questions and in many other debates—are invaluable in helping to inform those considerations.

If any changes were made to the scheme in future, they would have to be able to secure appropriate reinsurance, which would be challenging in the current market. Indeed, the reason that the regulations are necessary is that it has been challenging to find affordable reinsurance for the industry. I just flag that none of the options are cost free; all of them come with a cost, and all of them would require being able to find the reinsurance in the market at the time. It might be worth putting this into the wider context in which we see the world, too—I will not go too far down the rabbit hole—and flagging that insurance is purchased globally and influenced by global events. The levy we are discussing would undoubtedly have to be increased if we were looking at any kind of increase to the scheme.

The shadow Minister also mentioned businesses. Business insurance operates very differently from household insurance; it is often bespoke, based on the individual nature of the business. Extending the scope of Flood Re to include businesses would fundamentally change the scope and the intention of the scheme, which was established to support householders who are unable to source affordable flood insurance. Any change to include any part of the commercial sector would necessarily create a new levy on all businesses, which is unlikely to be welcomed. Thinking through the implications of what the shadow Minister said, obviously, businesses are very different in nature, and if we were to create a similar scheme, we would be raising a cost on every business, in the same way that Flood Re works at the moment. There are already a number of products offered to businesses by industry, such as the British Insurance Brokers’ Association commercial property scheme, which is there to help small and medium-sized enterprises.

The shadow Minister also suggested including buildings built after 2009, but doing so would contradict planning policy. The national planning policy framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas of highest risk, including floodplains. Where development is necessary, and where there are no suitable sites available in areas with a lower risk of flooding, local planning authorities and developers should that ensure development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, and safe for its users and for the development’s lifetime. We are committed to building more high-quality, well-designed and sustainable homes, and creating places that increase climate change resilience and promote nature recovery.

Planning was also mentioned. I am wary that we are straying into another Department’s responsibility, but I will do my best to address the issues as they relate to flooding. We are committed to building new homes and promoting nature recovery. In July 2024, the Government issued a consultation, inviting views on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework to achieve sustainable growth, including views on the potential improvements to planning policy for flood risk. If developments need to be in locations where there is a risk of flooding as alternative sites are not available, they should be flood resilient and resistant, and safe for their lifetime, and really importantly they should not increase flood risk overall.

The food resilience taskforce was mentioned. It has met as an entire body twice. The idea is that everybody on the taskforce meets—it has about 30 members—and then we commission sub-groups to deep dive into some areas. Those groups then report back to the main taskforce. For example, on nature-based solutions, which the shadow Minister and I both care about, a sub-group of the original taskforce went away and looked at that in detail. It will then report back to the main taskforce.

The main taskforce is like a large convening body that includes National Farmers Union representatives, a Cabinet Office Minister and representation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—all the bodies are represented—and we then go away and look at things in detail. As a result of the most recent taskforce meeting, a smaller group is going to do a deep dive into flood warnings. A smaller group from the taskforce—not all 30 members, but the relevant ones—will go away and do that piece of work, which then feeds back to the taskforce and reports back to everyone.

It is envisaged that the big group will meet just a few times a year, and in between smaller groups will do deep dives into some of the particular issues. Rather than getting 30 people together every week, it feels more sensible to get those people together to look at the bigger picture and then have smaller groups doing deep-dive work into individual issues. That is the structure of the taskforce; I hope that reassures the shadow Minister as to how we intend it to work.

On frequent flooding, the flood funding formula review is looking at how it all works. The shadow Minister is right to highlight that the previous Government had the flooding formula and then the frequently flooded add-on. They then had another add-on for nature-based solutions. My vision—of course, this is subject to consultation, so Members should feed in their views—is that the flooding formula should incorporate those people at risk of frequent flooding, as well as nature-based solutions. Rather than having a formula to which we are almost sticking things to try to make it work, the formula itself should encompass many of the different issues. That is going to be out for consultation and, as I say, I am keen to hear feedback through that consultation about how the formula will work.

The formula was originally based only on the number of properties protected, which meant that it seemed to disadvantage people from rural communities because they were not as adequately represented because, by their very nature, rural communities have fewer properties. It is really important that we look at how that works. The shadow Minister mentioned the importance of the frequently flooded aspect and, yes, that must be part of the formula—not an add-on but an integral part of it.

I completely agree that it is important to get the information that people need. Each of us as leaders in our local communities can have a role in this. It is not just about flood alerts. The other thing that I am currently playing with in my mind is my feeling that people do not know what to do when they get a flood alert. It is not just about getting a flood alert; do people know what they need to do in that situation? I am thinking about how we can work across the House not only to encourage all our constituents to sign up for flood alerts but to say what they need to do when they get one. There are simple things—for example, so much damage could have been prevented in the last period of flooding if people had moved their cars. We want people to take those kinds of actions. How do we get that behaviour change so that when a flood alert comes people say, “Right, I’ve got to go and do this”? I am really keen to work with colleagues across the House on that.

Reinsurance and the increasing risk is also incredibly important. After this measure Flood Re will be buying three years’ worth of reinsurance, so for the next three years there will be enough reinsurance to cover all the properties needed. At the end of that three years, we might be here again talking about the flood insurance costs going up and having to rebuy it.

Coastal erosion is not part of Flood Re, because Flood Re is based on flooded properties, but I absolutely hear the hon. Member for North Norfolk’s point about the devastation caused by coastal erosion. My constituency is in Hull, but I am very near to the east coast and can see exactly what is happening there, where the roads and caravans are disappearing. I have nothing but sympathy and support for the people impacted. I know that East Riding of Yorkshire council has been working on this issue, and the hon. Gentleman’s local council will be working with the Environment Agency to come up with a coastal change plan. I encourage him to talk to the area director and the council and get them to explain their plan to deal with coastal erosion. DEFRA helps to fund that work, but it is not strictly part of the Flood Re scheme.

I hope I have covered most of the points raised, so let me turn back to the statutory instrument. I thank all Members for their support for the SI, which will ensure that Flood Re is able to purchase all the necessary reinsurance at the best possible price, so that it can continue to be dynamic in meeting the needs of those the scheme is intended to support. If the increase was not supported—although it is, so thanks everyone— Flood Re would have to look at other sources of income. It is good that it is not in that position. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion:

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 2 to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes Amendment (a) in lieu of the words so left out.

[Emma Hardy]

I am delighted to have another opportunity to debate this transformative Bill in this Chamber. I thank all Members for continuing to take an interest in this important piece of legislation, which demonstrates our shared commitment to improving the water sector. Today, this House will consider amendments made in the other place.

I recognise that there is huge interest across this House in wider issues relating to water. Though our debate today is solely focused on the changes made to the Water (Special Measures) Bill in the other place during the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments on 5 February, I look forward to future opportunities to discuss wider concerns and actions, for example through work relating to the independent commission.

I turn first to the changes made in the other place that would require water companies to regularly report to Ofwat on their financial structure, and to ensure that that information could be readily accessed and understood by the public. It is important to highlight that water companies are already required under their licences to publish by a set date financial performance metrics within their annual performance reports. That includes the interest on their borrowings, their financial flows and an analysis of their debt. If water companies do not comply with these licence conditions, Ofwat can take enforcement action, including issuing fines.

However, the Government recognise that there is an opportunity to make financial data more accessible for members of the public. The Government have therefore worked at pace with Lord Cromwell and Ofwat to develop a way to achieve our shared objective of improving the transparency and accessibility of reporting on key financial metrics. The insertion of a new section 35E into the Water Industry Act 1991 will make it clear that water companies should provide an intelligible overview of their financial position at least once a year. That overview should include a summary of the significant changes that have taken place over the past 12 months, and will cover key aspects of water companies’ financial position, such as their share capital and debt.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Ofwat has said that it believes that the right level of debt should be 60%, yet it has taken no action against those companies whose level of debt has risen to as much as 80%. Can the Minister assure us that under the Bill, Ofwat will not only have the power to act when companies’ debt levels are too high, but will use it?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know how much he cares about this and many environmental issues. Amendment (a) refers only to the reporting arrangements for levels of debt rather than specifying the levels of debt that would be acceptable. It is about increased transparency, whereas his points fall more into the remit of the water commission, which is looking at all those issues as part of its wider work. I stress that the amendment is just about how information is reported and transparency.

The information must be made available in a prominent place on the water company’s website, ensuring accessibility for members of the public. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 35E also provides Ofwat with the power to determine the information that a water company must publish, as well as the ability to review requirements on financial reporting from time to time. That addition will ensure that reporting requirements keep pace with changes in the expectations and needs of bill payers. I would like to be clear, however, that the Government expect the power to be used to ensure that reporting requirements remain relevant, rather than to dilute or diminish the ambition of reporting requirements.

Financial reporting will also continue to be underpinned by pre-existing statutory obligations and licence conditions. In line with other requirements brought forward in clause 1, this new requirement will commence on Royal Assent. These amendments will help to rebuild public trust in the sector and provide the public with the levels of openness and transparency that they deserve.

I turn to the other Government amendment, which relates to the requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed by way of affirmative statutory instrument, as reintroduced by the motion tabled by Lord Blencathra in the other place. While the Government recognise that there were calls in the other place for increased parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules, we have significant concerns that a requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be finalised through an affirmative statutory instrument would delay the rules being implemented.

We are clear that Ofwat’s rules should be brought forward as soon as possible. That will ensure swift and meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of water companies as they begin to deliver on the largest investment package in the history of the water sector. Requiring the rules to be confirmed by statutory instrument would risk delay to the rules coming into force. We also maintain concerns that the Lords amendments would compromise the independence of Ofwat, because they would require Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed through legislation prepared by the Government. That independence must be protected if we are to ensure investor confidence in the water sector.

The Government are confident that the Bill already provides for sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules as it is required to conduct a statutory consultation on the rules before they are finalised. Separately, Ofwat has already concluded an initial policy consultation on a draft of the rules and how they will apply. It received 11,700 responses on the rules through its consultation, which it is actively considering. As such, the Government are seeking to reverse the requirement and to introduce provisions in its place that will require Ofwat to provide its first set of rules in draft to the Secretary of State at least seven days before they are issued. I hope that hon. Members across the House will support that change, which will ensure that Ofwat’s rules are put into place as soon as possible following Royal Assent, in addition to the Government’s amendments to introduce new financial reporting requirements.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this final stage of the Bill. Before I start my remarks, I will respond to the pertinent question about levels of borrowing for water companies asked by my friend and former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The Minister is right that Government amendment (a) is about reporting rather than the levels of borrowing. It is regrettable that the Government chose to reject the Conservative amendment in Committee that would have allowed the Secretary of State to set the amounts of borrowing for water companies. I hope that, as we move towards Cunliffe review, the Government may look at that again so that we can have tighter control on the water companies and their levels of debt.

Before I make my remarks on the Lords messages, I will say that getting to the Bill to this stage has been the result of much hard work across this House and the other place. I thank everyone, both front of house and behind the scenes, who has worked hard to get us here. That includes: the Minister for her willingness to listen to those across the House throughout the Bill’s passage; similarly, her counterpart in the other place, Baroness Hayman; those who have worked to draft the Bill and amendments; the Bill Committee; parliamentary staff from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and campaign groups and stakeholders who provided their insights to the Committee to help make the Bill even stronger, not least the Conservative Environment Network, the Angling Trust, and the Wildlife and Countryside Link.

Sadly, however, as the Opposition have stressed throughout the Bill’s passage in this House and the other place, this final stage of the Bill risks being yet another missed opportunity to act holistically on this important issue. It is unfortunate that the Government have been unwilling to go much further than their copy-and-paste approach, rebooting measures that the Conservatives took in government to address this issue.

We heard in previous stages how the bans on bonuses for water company chief executives and ensuring that 100% of storm overflows are monitored—up from 7% under Labour—were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. None the less, ever the optimist, I came to the Chamber hoping that the Government might be willing to reconsider their position on the issues of the amendments and the reasoning from the other place, which cover familiar ground. We debated these issues in the previous stages, not only in this House but in the other place.

At the heart of the Lords amendments is a theme that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have emphasised throughout the Bill’s passage: accountability. The previous lack of accountability for water companies created many of the issues that the water industry has faced. The Conservatives in government and now this Government have attempted to try and address that. This is another chance for the Government to go even further and inject some of what is really needed into their approach.

I turn to Lords amendment 1B, which reverses the Government’s decision to remove measures from the Bill that would require financial reporting to be collected by Ofwat for its remuneration guidance. We know that one of the most worrying aspects of our water industry has been its financial resilience, as Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report back in November made clear, with 10 companies at need of increased monitoring and three in the highest category of risk, with closer monitoring required at a more senior level with Ofwat.

We all know, too, the cases involving specific water companies and the real risk that financial mismanagement brings for the survival of those companies and the water provision that their consumers rely on. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government have been unwilling throughout the Bill’s passage to accept Conservative amendments, or Cross-Bench amendments such as this one by Lord Cromwell, offered in a constructive spirit, which may have gone some way to address the issue. None the less, the Opposition truly want to see better financial resilience. Therefore, on financial reporting in particular, we want the Government to accept this as a reasonable step to regain accountability on financial resilience.

The Lords amendment to clause 1 would quite simply mean that, when it comes to financial reporting, there would be nowhere to hide for water companies and the decisions they make in this area. I note that, following the Lords’ rejection of Commons amendment 1, the Government have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1B, which will go some way to improving the financial transparency of water companies, as a formal concession to Lords amendment 1B.

Subsection (4) of Government amendment (a) states that what water companies must publish should be decided “from time to time”. I hope the Minister can see that such vagueness might be a problem moving forward, as “from time to time” could allow the regulator not to review when the need arises, because it had done so a few years prior or even longer ago, and justify that by arguing that it was doing so “from time to time”, as the law outlines. Even if nothing or little would need changing from year to year, or every few years, surely it would be better to require this at least to be reviewed at precise regular intervals so that the most valuable information is provided in the best possible format.

That aside, however, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition acknowledge the Government’s concession on financial transparency, and indeed public access, including characteristics of capital and debt. We are pleased to see that addition to the Bill.

In the same spirit, I move on to Lords reason 2A to disagree with Commons amendment 2, which urges this House to consider again the requirement that any rules under clause 1 be brought into force by means of a statutory instrument from the Secretary of State. Again, this amendment is familiar territory that we have debated at many stages, having been a measure consistently called for by His Majesty’s Opposition in the other place and in this House, both in the Chamber and in Committee. We have maintained throughout that accountability is needed to deliver and enforce change in the water industry, but that must include the Government of the day, no matter which party they are.

It is odd that, on the one hand, this Government have claimed that they want a tight grip on water companies, while on the other, they consistently oppose a measure that would allow them to do exactly that. It is odd, too, that in Committee, the Liberal Democrats sought to amend the same part of the Bill that would have that effect. Their intentions were to bring in guidance as soon as possible, but there is a distinction between intent and effect. Removing some of the same lines would have had the same exact effect in ridding the Bill of the statutory instrument requirement that this amendment seeks to maintain.

The Government have argued—as the Minister has again today—that they fear that Ofwat’s flexibility to adapt their rules as necessary could be impeded in some way. But statutory instruments remain a timely measure to introduce any changes if needed. So once again, the Government’s argument does not stack up. It is only right that we, as parliamentarians elected by the British public to represent their interests with our voices and votes, are able to look at the proposed rules and exercise our ability to voice concerns if they risk falling short of protecting the public’s interests. Why deny the public and Members of this House the ability to uphold accountability of the water industry, which has been missing for too long? As such, once again we have urged the Government to accept what we believe is a reasonable set of amendments in the name of accountability.

Now, at the 11th hour, the Government have tabled Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords reason 2A that disagrees with Commons amendment 2, the amendments tabled and argued for by my Conservative friends in the other place the noble Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and add that the remuneration and governance rules may not be not be enacted until they have been provided in draft to the Secretary of State. There is a move towards some Government accountability, but sadly, not what the Opposition had wanted: a statutory instrument laid by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses.

None the less, I am grateful that the Government have listened to Lord Roborough, me and the other Conservative colleagues who have argued for more accountability, and that they have moved a little towards us with this amendment. However, I am still unclear why the Government appear scared of full accountability. Sadly, I fear that some of these last-minute concessions, which we would like to go further, look like the Government trying to avoid double insistence and the Bill failing. We do not wish the Bill to fail, as we all want the same thing: to see our waters improve and for the Government to continue with the measures that the Conservatives set in train in the last Parliament. In that spirit, we will not stand in the way of the Government’s amendments.

There has been many a chance for the Government to grab opportunities to bolster the Bill with both hands. Many chances have been missed throughout its passage, not least by the Government continually rejecting our water restoration fund to ringfence fines to restore local waterways, rather than to balance the Treasury’s books. They did not accept our sensible proposals to go further with nature-based solutions to flood risk. They rejected our proposals for fines on water companies to result in equivalent reductions in customers’ bills, and our sensible proposals to allow the Secretary of State to place limits on the amount that water companies can borrow. They blocked our proposals to protect consumers in different parts of the country from paying for failing water companies that do not supply them.

As the Bill progresses and the Cunliffe review begins, I again urge the Government, for the sake of our water, environment, constituents, communities and, indeed, fairness, not to let political pride and dogma stand in the way of doing the right thing and making water legislation the best it can be. We wish the Bill well as it ends its journey in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I have already taken two interventions from the hon. Gentleman, so I will not.

My simple comment is that this Bill will do good, and we are supportive of it. We wish only to trouble the House a short time to ensure greater scrutiny is brought in. We have accepted throughout this process, with some reluctance, the Government’s position that this is part 1, and that part 2 is to come, and that the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe will potentially consider more radical action. We hope that is the case, and we shall engage with things on that basis. I have in my hand some pieces of paper that I propose to send to Jon Cunliffe, which tighten up some of the smorgasbord of amendments, as they have been called.

We care deeply about our waterways. I am honoured to represent the bulk of the English Lake district, with so many lakes and rivers, as well as our coastal areas in Morecambe bay. The quality of our waterways is deeply personal to me and to my communities. We shall continue to campaign unashamedly for something far better for our constituents, and indeed for our water right across the United Kingdom.

[Emma Hardy]

With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and valuable contributions to today’s debate. Without stepping into the territory of a Second Reading debate, I suggest gently to the House that we are here today debating the Water (Special Measures) Bill precisely because of the public outrage caused by previous lack of investment, and the fact that every single river, lake and sea in our country has been polluted. Had the previous Government, as stated by the now official Opposition, done the marvellous, wonderful job that they seem to want to suggest they did, there would not be the need for this Bill in the first place—neither would there be the need for all the campaigns that have taken place up and down the country. However, I will go no further into that.

I have respect for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), as he knows. However, I say gently that it is dishonest to suggest that legislation is needed for the water restoration fund, because, in fact, the Conservatives created the fund without legislation. To imply that legislation is required to have the fund would, therefore, be inadvertently dishonest. It was created without legislation, and therefore it does not need legislation to be held.

[Dr Hudson]

I am slightly concerned that the Minister is raising questions about my honesty. The water restoration fund exists, but where is it now? What has happened to it? Are the Government going to use it again? That is why we wanted to push, at every stage of the Bill, the point that the water restoration fund needs to be used to ringfence money so that fines on water companies can be ploughed back into restoring local waterways. I will be very happy if the Minister says today that the water restoration fund is carrying on, and then my honesty will be intact.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I have said throughout, he will have to wait and see, but to imply that legislation is required for the fund would be dishonest. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want his honesty to be questioned. The implication that legislation is required for the water restoration fund is simply not true.

As I outlined in my opening speech, I recognise that there remains a strong interest in issues wider than the scope of today’s debate. I reiterate that the Bill is not the limit of our ambition. The Government will continue to work with hon. Members across the House to discuss and make progress in addressing the fundamental issues facing our water sector.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the words “time to time”. The wording has been specifically designed to allow Ofwat to review requirements as and when appropriate, and adapt quickly where needed. We do not want to pre-empt how often this kind of review might need to take place. To reassure him, that was discussed at length in the other place.

On parliamentary scrutiny, the Government worked with Ofwat to offer peers and MPs an opportunity to raise questions on Ofwat’s rules in a parliamentary drop-in session, providing further insight on the rules. However, that proposal was not accepted by hon. Members’ colleagues in the other place, which feels like a shame.

It has always been our intention to bring about, through the Bill, meaningful change in the performance and culture of the water sector. The amendments tabled by the Government are in keeping with that objective. I hope the House will support the Government amendments, which will ensure that the public can easily access an overview of water company financial information, and will give Ofwat a duty to issue rules on financial transparency that will commence on Royal Assent. Together, the amendments will enable the Government to take another positive step forward in restoring public trust in the water sector, which has sadly been destroyed over the past 14 years.

Similarly, I hope the House will support the Government in bringing forward amendments to ensure that Ofwat’s rules are brought forward promptly and that its independence is protected. The Government acknowledge the intention behind the changes made in the other place, but we cannot accept the risk that they create in delaying the introduction of Ofwat’s rules. I therefore hope that Members across the House will also support the Government in ensuring that these vital rules are brought forward without delay.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am sure the Minister did not meant to imply that the shadow Minister was in any way dishonest, and she might perhaps seek to correct the record to say she felt that he was mistaken or incorrect.

[Emma Hardy]

I am very happy to issue that correction.

Question put.

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

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

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 2 to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes amendment (a) in lieu of the words so left out.—(Keir Mather.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

8. What steps he is taking to support flood preparedness projects.

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

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

[Zöe Franklin]

Across my constituency of Guildford, the local flood forums work tirelessly, bringing together agencies and residents to address the growing concerns they have about flooding. Will the Minister provide detail on how the Government will ensure that constituencies like mine, which often miss out because they are semi-rural and urban, get the funding they need to address current flooding issues? How can we mitigate the growing flooding issues across Guildford in a holistic and sustainable way?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

Will the Minister confirm what portion of the £2.6 billion allocated to flood preparedness will be used in my constituency of Maidenhead, specifically to protect the villages of Hurley and Cookham?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserve great credit for attracting the large investment that they have secured, but once they have finished the lap of honour, they will be aware that this is the first step up the mountain. The Minister is right that the Government have inherited flood defences that are in an appalling state, and the latest estimate shows that as many as 6 million houses are at risk of flooding. I call on her to get on with the flood improvements that we demand in Chesterfield. First, will she tell us more about how she will ensure the money will be spent wisely? Secondly, how will she ensure that the Treasury understands that this is not a one-year commitment, but something that we will need for the rest of this term in office?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

In the north of my constituency, between the Scottish border and Hadrian’s wall, lie the debatable lands, but in the centre of Carlisle lies a forgotten land along the River Caldew. It is forgotten because of the incompetence of the Conservatives, who failed to deliver the flood defences along the Caldew that were promised after Carlisle was devastated in 2015. Will the Minister remember the forgotten lands of Carlisle?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Yet another wet winter across Somerset highlights the need for the Government to urgently deliver solutions to mitigate the impact of flooding on farmland and protect domestic food production. The Brue headwaters multi-benefit project, facilitated by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group South West, is working with farmers and landowners in Bruton, Charlton Musgrove and Wincanton to address flooding issues and to hold workshops that focus on natural flood management, to slow the flow of water across the upper Brue, thus reducing flooding, sediment run-off and the associated pollution of water- courses. Despite those efforts, many farmers in the catchment, and indeed the county and the country, are angry at the level of inundation of land that could be prevented by better flood management. How will the Minister work to support farmers, build flood resilience and protect food security?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

6. Whether he plans to regulate the breeding of cats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T4. The area around Heathrow has breached nitrogen dioxide legal limits for years now, so what assessment has the Environment Secretary made of the impact on air quality of both the additional flights and the additional vehicles travelling to and from Heathrow as a result of a third runway?

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

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

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

T3. Too many communities, including in Huddersfield, are forced to deal with persistent fly-tipping and littering in their streets and neighbourhoods, and residents are understandably fed up with it. What support are the Government providing to local areas to ensure that they have the resources they need to prevent and tackle persistent fly-tipping?

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

T5.   Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. Many of my constituents in Hayle have become increasingly concerned about the dredging of sand around Hayle harbour and the potential environmental damage. We desperately need a solution that works for residents and the environment and maintains our vitally important harbour. Will the Minister meet me as a matter of urgency to discuss how the Government and the Environment Agency will support all local stakeholders to establish a long-term sand management and erosion plan in Hayle?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and for the work he is doing in championing what is obviously a crucial issue for his residents. I would of course be happy to meet him.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Constituents in Witney were extremely distressed to receive letters this week from Thames Water saying that their bills are going up by £19 a month from April, putting more pressure on household bills. Does the Minister think that is acceptable, given that the restructuring plan in the High Court is putting £800 million to £900 million of interest expenses on to this company—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

T7. Rural communities such as Marchington, Draycot and Rolleston have been suffering with flooding for many years, with funding often going to areas with larger populations. Can the Minister set out what steps she has taken to ensure that rural communities are not left out of flood protection funding?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight how the previous flooding formula discriminated against rural communities because it was based purely on the number of properties protected, not on creating the right solution in the right area. That is exactly why we wish to reform the formula, and we will be announcing a consultation very shortly.

[Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

Given that the Office for Budget Responsibility refused to endorse the £22 billion black hole figure—in fact, it refused to say that there was any black hole at all—will the Secretary of State tell the House what possible justification there can be for the removal of agricultural property relief, which will do untold damage to the growth prospects of family farms in my constituency and across the country?

Marine Environment

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Written Statements

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

Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of this Government’s five missions. This is critical to our country—to cut bills; to create jobs; to deliver energy security, with cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030; and to meet our net zero target.

This Government have taken immediate action by setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned company to invest in clean, home-grown energy. We have also already committed to the biggest investment in clean energy in British history.

Offshore wind will play a pivotal role in our achieving clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero by 2050—our recently published clean power action plan sets a capacity range for between 43 GW and 50 GW by 2030. The UK is already a world leader in offshore wind technology, and the Great British Energy partnership with the Crown Estate will bring forward new offshore wind developments, with the potential to deliver up to 20 GW to 30 GW of extra offshore wind seabed leases to the market by 2030.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is playing a crucial role in supporting the growth of offshore wind, to help de-risk and accelerate planning decisions for offshore wind while protecting and enhancing the marine environment. The nature and climate change crises are of equal importance, and we must address them together.

To do this, we will implement an offshore wind environmental improvement package. Work is well advanced, and recent and upcoming milestones include:

underlining our commitment to use the powers conferred in the Energy Act 2023 to ensure that compensatory measures for unavoidable environmental impacts to marine protected areas (MPAs) can be delivered strategically rather than on a project-by-project basis, including through a library of measures that DEFRA is developing in collaboration with stakeholders;

publication of an updated joint position statement on unexploded ordinance that sets out that low noise clearance should be the default in the marine environment. This has also been published alongside a marine noise policy paper highlighting the further actions we are taking to reduce noise in our seas;

consulting on an offshore wind piling noise limit in the first half of 2025, followed by a pilot programme in 2025 and 2026, to reduce the risk of project delays because of the need to limit the amount of underwater noise generated;

consulting in spring 2025 on reforms to the environmental compensation requirements for offshore wind projects, with the aim to bring in legislation by autumn 2025. This will aim to increase the number of measures available to developers to offset the adverse impacts of offshore wind developments, while retaining a robust process that ensures that damage to our precious marine environment remains compensated for; and

the launch of a marine recovery fund in late 2025 to provide an optional mechanism for developers to fund delivery of strategic compensatory measures.

We are already delivering on the clean power action plan. Today I am announcing an action that my Department will take to help accelerate and de-risk the consent of offshore wind projects while continuing to protect the marine environment.

Multiple offshore wind projects are at risk because there are currently no ecologically effective options that developers can deliver themselves to compensate for their unavoidable impacts on seabed habitats within special areas of conservation and marine conservation zones. Without suitable measures, these projects cannot be delivered. DEFRA commits to designating new MPAs and/or extending existing MPAs in Secretary of State waters to deliver sufficient strategic compensation to compensate for likely environmental effects of offshore wind development. We do not expect this to be available to any project outside the following:

Projects that received a seabed lease from the Crown Estate under leasing round 3, round 4 or the 2017 extensions round;

Projects in the current leasing round 5 in the Celtic sea;

Associated transmission infrastructure projects—for example, those forming part of the holistic network design. We will be working with devolved Governments on how this relates to projects in their waters where cabling will come through English waters; and

Projects that have already been granted consent but are unable to discharge their consent conditions, or where adaptive management may now be required as the agreed compensation measures have not had the impact expected when consent was granted.

We are also aware that offshore wind projects might sometimes be required to compensate for essential maintenance activities carried out once the wind farm is operational and/or for unforeseen impacts. For this reason, we will aim to deliver additional environmental compensation so that projects eligible to request MPA designation to support project consent—those listed above, in paragraph 7—as well as operational projects delivered in leasing round 2, can access this measure if available and deemed suitable.

In all cases, MPA designations will be delivered by DEFRA. Those designations and associated management will be funded by the offshore wind developers that successfully apply to use this measure through the marine recovery fund.

We anticipate that the total area of new and/or extended MPAs required to compensate for the predicted impacts of offshore wind projects will be small in comparison to the tranches of MPAs previously designated in Secretary of State waters. We will be looking to protect a range of benthic habitats.

Working closely with our statutory nature conservation bodies, potential areas will be identified based on ecological principles. We will be following the established legislative processes for designation and will keep stakeholders, including the fishing industry, regularly informed, as well as providing opportunities for them to share any concerns as regards the proposed sites, so that the views and impacts on affected industries and communities are fully understood.

To avoid the risk that new MPAs designated for compensation might later be leased for energy or other projects that cause damage, we will also be working with the Crown Estate, the Marine Management Organisation and others to explore ways in which we might deliver additional long-term protection from future impacts that will require compensation.

Designating new MPAs and putting management measures in place to protect them will take time. Although work has already begun on this, we are aware that the timelines of some projects mean that they will still be delayed if they are required to wait for MPA designations and associated management to be functioning. Where this is the case, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Marine Management Organisation may consider circumstances in which the adverse effect can occur before compensation is in place. However, this would need to be considered against other factors. Where this is permitted, a greater amount of environmental compensation is likely to be needed to make up for the time delay and developers will be required to pay into the marine recovery fund before any adverse effect can occur. DEFRA will also be producing high-level implementation and monitoring plans in advance of final MPA designations to assist developers in providing the necessary information at this stage, with final updated plans being provided once designation has taken place.

We recognise that accelerating development of marine activities, and environmental protection and restoration measures such as the designation of new MPAs, is increasing marine spatial tensions. Though not caused by their actions, these competing priorities and demands for space present a challenge for the fishing industry, particularly as it is unlikely that it will be possible to avoid causing an impact on fishing activities in all cases. Fishing is an incredibly important part not just of the UK’s food system, but of our cultural identity as a country—so much so that we will not let these impacts on the industry go unaddressed. That is why DEFRA established, and continues to lead, the cross-Government marine spatial prioritisation programme, working with the Marine Management Organisation, to address this spatial squeeze and ensure that the industry’s interests are represented. The Government will ensure that the sector is supported to adapt to increased pressure on space. We will work with the industry to maintain its viability into the future and ensure that it continues to make a significant contribution to coastal communities. The Government are committed to finding ways for different industries to co-exist and benefit from our marine space. We will also work with the Crown Estate and other relevant stakeholders to see how they can help in this process. Food security is national security, and a sustainable fishing industry is an important part of that.

Alongside designating MPAs for benthic compensation, we will be undertaking a wider review of the MPA network and we will be keeping delivery of the MPA target under review, with the aim of future-proofing the network, for example in terms of climate change adaptation and mitigation, while allowing us to still meet our international commitment to effectively protect 30% of our seas by 2030. A wider network review will also look to provide higher certainty for the fishing industry on the future MPA network.

My announcement today demonstrates this Government’s dual commitment to enabling offshore wind and protecting our precious marine environment, while supporting our fishing industry. The fragile state of our natural environment means that we cannot afford to press ahead without considering the impact on nature—we need to address both the climate and biodiversity crises together.

Our action will help unlock the capacity needed to meet this Government’s ambitious but achievable target of clean power by 2030, building a home-grown energy system that takes back control and can bring down bills for households and businesses for good.

[HCWS394]