Water Company Resilience to Heatwaves

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Written Statements

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

I wish to update the House on the action this Government are taking to strengthen water company resilience to heatwaves and sustained hot weather.

The Met Office outlook for July to September 2026 indicates that a hotter than usual three-month period is more likely than normal. Higher temperatures can place significant pressure on water resources and infrastructure, increase customer demand, and heighten the risk of localised supply interruptions. It is therefore essential that water companies maintain robust plans to protect customers and sustain supplies during periods of severe and prolonged heat.

This year has already been challenging for water supplies. Some parts of the country have received lower than average rainfall this spring, such as the Anglian region where only 39% of expected rainfall fell. Combined with record spring temperatures, this has reduced reservoir and groundwater storage and river flows across a number of regions.

Alongside recent heatwaves, water companies have increased supply to meet rising demand. During the Met Office red heat warning, Thames Water supplied an additional 316 million litres of water per day compared with the previous year, while Anglian Water increased production by up to 30%, equivalent to supplying a county the size of Lincolnshire. Despite these pressures and some localised supply interruptions, the sector avoided widespread disruption and maintained supplies to the vast majority of customers.

On Thursday 2 July, I brought together the senior leadership of Water UK and those water companies most affected by the recent Met Office amber and red heat warnings to review the sector’s response to the recent period of extreme heat, assess preparedness for the remainder of the summer, and agree the actions necessary to strengthen resilience and protect customers during any future periods of sustained hot weather. The meeting examined lessons from recent heatwaves and the actions needed to reduce future risks to customers.

Temporary use bans are in place across a number of regions in response to high levels of demand. TUBs are currently in place for South East Water customers in Kent, Southern Water customers in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, South West Water customers in mid-Devon and parts of east Devon, and across the Anglian Water region. Cambridge Water and Affinity Water have also announced TUBs which will come into force shortly. Such measures can help manage demand and protect supplies during periods of sustained pressure.

Everyone has a role to play in using water wisely, particularly during periods of sustained hot weather. I expect water companies to provide customers with clear and timely information on the practical steps they can take to reduce the amount of water they use during periods of peak demand.

The Government will maintain close oversight of water sector resilience throughout the summer. My officials remain in regular contact with the sector, regulators and resilience partners to monitor demand, water resource availability, infrastructure resilience and incident preparedness. I expect all water companies to manage periods of exceptional demand, protect vulnerable customers and respond effectively to incidents. Where performance or preparedness falls short, I will not hesitate to take the action needed to minimise impacts on customers.

I welcome Ofwat’s announcement of a £30.5 million redress package for South East Water for failures that left thousands of households without water for days. The package was developed following a joined-up approach between water regulators, targeting the best possible action to address SEW’s failures. This is in line with the Government proposed water reforms, which will involve the new regulator taking a supervisory approach—enabling a broader and better understanding of company performance, earlier intervention and prevention of further decline. The package also includes requirements to produce a performance improvement plan, setting out how the company will deliver sustained improvement in its performance, and an independent monitor to support Ofwat to assess progress against the plan.

A reliable supply of clean water is fundamental to public health, economic growth and community resilience. Alongside immediate action to prepare for summer pressures, this Government are delivering the long-term reforms needed to build a stronger and more resilient water sector.

Through our programme of water reform, we are strengthening regulation and accountability while ensuring companies deliver the investment needed to improve infrastructure and resilience. We will create a single, powerful regulator, giving Government and regulators, for the first time, a clear system-wide view of company performance and stronger tools to intervene where companies fall short. We will also introduce a water ombudsman, ensuring that customers have a stronger voice and clearer routes to redress when things go wrong.

This builds on the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which introduced the toughest sentencing powers ever applied to lawbreaking water company executives and powers to ban unjustified executive bonuses. Together, these reforms will strengthen accountability and help restore public confidence in the water sector.

We will also introduce statutory resilience standards, improve asset mapping and strengthen oversight of critical infrastructure to help water companies prepare for climate change and more frequent periods of extreme heat.

[HCWS279]

Waste Management Sites

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 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 begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) and to the rest of the House for my late arrival to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. She may have noticed that I am not the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), but I hope to do her justice in responding to this debate because I know how hard she has worked on this issue and how seriously she takes it. I thank hon. Members from across the House, who have made valuable points today. This debate reminds me why it is so important to deal properly with rubbish and why all Members of the House support bins, whether they are Counts or not—sorry for my throwaway comment.

People rightly expect their community to be a safe, clean and pleasant place to live. They expect clean air, thriving natural spaces and confidence that waste is being managed responsibly. Most importantly, they expect environmental regulation and waste management to be working in the interests of local people. I absolutely agree, and so do the Government.

I will quickly summarise some of the actions that the Government have taken, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature, and the achievements of the waste crime action plan commitments. My hon. Friend has already reformed the carriers, brokers and dealers regime, which was debated in the House of Commons just last week. She introduced digital waste tracking, the legislation for which was debated on 16 June. In March, she published updated statutory guidance and a code of practice for local authorities on litter enforcement powers and how to use them. She has also published best practice guidance for local authorities on using their powers to seize vehicles related to fly-tipping.

As well as that, the Minister has overseen the doubling of the Environment Agency’s waste crime enforcement budget, with an additional £45 million over the next three years. As my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out, it has been difficult for the Environment Agency to do its job given that it has faced 14 years of austerity and cuts, but it is now getting additional money to carry out its duties. The Environment Agency is building a new waste intelligence and analysis unit and has already started interviewing new staff for it. It has also secured access to key land registry data sets, allowing for quicker identification of the landowner when new illegal waste sites appear.

Courts can use their powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to put points on the driving licences of those guilty of fly-tipping. We will make fly-tippers clear up their own mess, and we will consult on how to make that commitment a reality. We have also started clearing up some of the worst illegal waste sites that blight communities up and down the country. We are moving quickly for the clear-up of the site at Bolton House Road in Wigan and installing fire and security mitigations.

This is not time for reviews of waste; it is time for more action, and that is exactly what this Government are doing. In that context, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood for her tireless efforts in drawing attention to the Jameson Road landfill in her constituency. Her constituents made a fantastic choice at the last election in voting for a tireless champion for their community and someone who —I know this from experience—does not let an issue go once she gets on to it. When it comes to my hon. Friend, we know that we have to do exactly what we are told.

As my hon. Friend set out, too many of her constituents have struggled with persistent odour complaints for far too long. Nobody should feel trapped in their homes, workplaces or schools because bad smells mean that they cannot go outside or even open their windows. We are obviously keeping a very close eye on sites such as Jameson Road, and we are using our regulatory powers through the Environment Agency to ensure that operators are held accountable for poor compliance.

The Environment Agency has already served enforcement notices to mitigate the worst effects of the odour at Jameson Road. My hon. Friend knows that because, as she mentioned, she meets with the Environment Agency every week; she is doing a brilliant job of holding them to account. In May earlier this year, the Environment Agency varied the permit to restrict the site to accepting only low-risk waste such as soil, concrete and bricks. A regulatory notice is also in force, which requires the operator to remediate the site, including temporary covering and subsequent permanent capping works. Those measures, alongside enhanced inspections and expanded monitoring arrangements, are expected to lead to a reduction in the incident reports associated with the site.

The Environment Agency will continue to maintain close regulatory oversight of the site and hold the operator to account—I know that my hon. Friend will, too—for delivering improvements that local communities rightly expect. The operator must continue to deliver the required improvements, and local communities should be confident that regulatory intervention will follow if standards are not met. Let me be clear: where compliance falls short at any waste site, the regulator is prepared to take further action as necessary, and it will work closely with the Government to ensure that communities are protected from serious harm.

I recognise that many other hon. Members in attendance today have poorly performing waste sites in their constituencies, and I will do my absolute best to answer as many questions as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) raised concerns about what is happening at the landfill in her area. As she will know, we already have the extra £45 million, which should help in her area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and I have had a meeting about the flies; flies were also mentioned by a couple other people. It is awful when we see a huge swarm of them, and they can enter people’s homes. We have had a number of meetings about the issue and we are staying in close contact. To answer another of my hon. Friend’s questions, I should say that our analysis is that the Environment Agency needs better enforcement powers, which is why we have committed in the waste crime action plan to give more powers to the EA as a priority for the teams. It is also why we are giving an extra £45 million, as has already been mentioned.

I have to pay tribute to the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). He has not missed an opportunity in the voting Lobby or when seeing me around Parliament to raise what is happening in Walleys Quarry. The latest information I have for him is that, following the operator’s liquidation, the Environment Agency is managing the site to prevent pollution risks. Work is focused on site stability, maintaining capping, managing leachate and developing longer-term engineering solutions. Although the odour reports remain very low, the Environment Agency is continuing to monitor the site to see if there is any increase in the odour. I know that my hon. Friend is on the case and will mention it to me if anything changes there.

The hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) mentioned the Lower Compton landfill site. The latest I can tell them about that site is that permanent capping of the operational area has been completed, and new gas infrastructure is due to be installed. The monitoring identified occasional exceedances of odour annoyance guidelines, but no exceedance of the World Health Organisation’s human health guidelines. The waste permits specify acceptance controls, and those can include sampling and testing.

Let me see who else I have on my list: to respond to the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), I should say that the site she mentioned has had 30 fires since reopening in February 2025. I believe most of those to be due to arson, and most to be outside the site. The Environment Agency is working closely with the operator and other partners on investigating the fires on the site.

I turn to what my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) said. The Government committed in our manifesto to moving the UK towards a circular economy. We will be publishing our circular economy growth plan soon. On the Pilsworth site in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the Environment Agency continues to closely monitor odour issues, which remain below World Health Organisation levels of concern, although that is not sufficient to reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents. That is why we are investing in the EA, with new enforcement powers and new funding.

I absolutely champion the local constituents whom my hon. Friend mentioned, who have come together to campaign on this issue. I reassure them and her that they absolutely have a voice with this Government. We are listening to them and taking them seriously.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). We know each other from previous campaigns together, so I know what a brilliant campaigner she is. I am pleased that some mitigations have been made and that things are starting to show improvements. I support her call for more joined-up work across the different agencies. If I can support her in helping to get that joined-up work, I absolutely will.

[Brian Mathew]

Could the Minister say a few words about a plastics tax, or a tax on single-use plastics, to make the recycling of plastics economic?

[Emma Hardy]

I am conscious that I am speaking outside my brief in responding to this debate, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature hears the hon. Member’s comment and gets back to him with her thoughts on that one.

I do not want to miss anyone out. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) raised the work that the Environment Agency is doing and—again—the problems that people have with flies. I totally agree with her point about putting people before profit—it should never be the other way round. A land remediation pathfinder scheme is launching this autumn, and support is available for local authorities’ work if needed. That will fund additional local authority resources, so additional money is coming in for some local authorities.

I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood time to respond, so I will speed up.

I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that although waste policy is devolved and the Northern Irish circumstances are unique, we enjoy a strong relationship with our colleagues in Northern Ireland. We are soon to commission new research on the drivers and regulatory factors underpinning waste crime, and are actively working with Northern Ireland colleagues on the design of that research.

I hope I have responded to most of the comments made by hon. Members. I know that they will continue to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature where necessary and make sure that the issue continues to be a priority for her and the rest of the Government.

Just in case this is my last time addressing everyone in this role, Dr Murrison, can I say thank you to my wonderful officials? Thank you to all the team I have worked with; it has been an absolute pleasure. Hopefully I will be back in the new term, but we never know. For the moment, over and out.

Future of Thames Water

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for inviting me to respond to his concerns about the future of Thames Water. I have listened with his interest to his comments, and I hope I will be able to add some facts to the debate. I also accept his sympathy and anger on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, they must feel very angry about the fact that water was left in such a state, and that the Environment Agency’s budget was cut by half by the coalition Government, who also introduced self-monitoring. The Environment Agency was unable to fulfil its duties during the time of the coalition Government, and the regulators did not put forward forceful accountability for the water companies. It was left to this Labour Government to clear up the mess left by the coalition Government and 14 years of the Conservatives. I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares my anger about that—I certainly felt angry about it when I came into government and saw the mess that we had been left to clear up.

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman exactly what we have done. We introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 within six weeks of entering government, to raise standards, enforce accountability, and make pollution cover-ups a criminal offence. We banned more than £4 million in bonuses, and unlocked money in private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure. Just last week we introduced automatic penalties. There is more I could mention, including 10,000 water inspections, which is many more than happened after the slash and burn of funding for the Environment Agency by the coalition Government. We have restored to the system the accountability that has been missing for so long.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

My constituents are cheering on the work that the Government have done by getting a grip of this situation after the Environment Agency was left to mark its own homework, and the self-monitoring and regulation framework failed. Will the Minister say more about the dedicated supervisory teams in the White Paper, which will be working to stop this happening again and ensure that Thames Water changes in future?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out how self-monitoring, which was introduced by the coalition Government, was such an utter mistake that has done so much damage to the water industry. It is why we are in the current situation. The purpose of the supervisory regime is to be able to intervene earlier, and it works alongside the performance improvement regime so that we can hold companies to account. That is why we are abolishing Ofwat—

[Charlie Maynard]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman, so I would be most grateful if he would not mind giving someone else a chance. We are looking at introducing the performance regime for the same reason, because we want to ensure that we can intervene early to stop the abject failure that we saw under the coalition Government.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Every week in my surgeries I hear about the consequences of Thames Water’s failures. An elderly widowed constituent was left without running water after it failed and botched the installation of a water meter, and she was forced to shell out hundreds of pounds on an emergency plumber to remedy the situation. Will the Minister confirm that she understands the anger of constituents like mine with regard to Thames Water and its continued failing? Will she confirm that she will keep all measures under review?

[Emma Hardy]

It is true that I feel angry on behalf of all our constituents who have been so badly let down by the system that we inherited, and that is exactly why we have taken the action that we have. There is, of course, lots more to do—nobody is saying there is not—but we have to acknowledge the dire straits and the mess that we inherited. We are going to bring forward a clean water Bill to deliver on our promise to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, and not just for today but for generations to come. The reforms will create a single powerful water regulator to act, and we will ensure that it has teeth in the way that the current regulator does not.

Turning to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Witney about the consortiums proposal, regarding the recapitalisation proposal being negotiated between Thames Water, London & Valley Water Consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—and Ofwat, I reiterate that this Government will always act in the national interest. Before I turn to the proposal itself, it is important to be clear about the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved, because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there. I welcome the opportunity to at least introduce a few more facts into the argument about the proposals.

Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, is responsible for assessing that proposal and deciding whether it meets the relevant regulatory and statutory requirements, including whether it is appropriate to take the proposal forward for consultation. However, section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on both Ofwat and the Secretary of State to exercise their respective relevant functions in the manner best calculated to further or achieve certain objectives. This includes protecting customers, securing the proper delivery of water and sewerage services, ensuring that companies can finance those services and that statutory obligations are properly carried out.

[Mike Martin]

Does the Minister think that the Secretary of State exercised those duties well when, under the Blair Government, Macquarie was allowed to come into Thames Water and South East Water and asset strip those companies?

[Emma Hardy]

Quite clearly, some of the behaviour that we have seen in the past from water companies shows that the regulatory system did not work, and that is exactly why we are changing it. Of course, between Blair and the current Government there were 14 years of Tory Government and five years of coalition Government during which those Governments could have taken the actions that we are taking today.

On 16 June, the Secretary of State gave her preliminary views on the consortium’s proposal to Ofwat, with reference to section 2 duties of the Water Industry Act 1991. She was clear that she does not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment. She cited three particular concerns in line with her duties: unfair costs to customers, delays to infrastructure investment and delays to environmental improvements.

However, the decision on how to assess the proposal and whether to proceed with consultation ultimately rests with Ofwat as the independent regulator. It is therefore important that the Government respect those boundaries. While the Secretary of State may express views in accordance with her statutory duties, it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct Ofwat’s decision making, prejudge the outcome of its assessment or be seen to exert undue influence on an independent regulatory process.

We are working closely with Ofwat, which will engage with the consortium on any revised proposal. It is important to be clear that it is ultimately a matter for Ofwat to decide whether to consult on the consortium’s proposal. However, I reassure the House that while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities and the Secretary of State takes her duties very seriously.

I will also use this debate as an opportunity to address some of the misconceptions that have developed about special administration. Too often, SAR is presented as a simple lever that the Government can pull whenever there are concerns about a water company’s performance, but that is simply not the case. The reality is that there is a high bar for the imposition of a special administration regime. A company can enter into a SAR only if it becomes insolvent, or if there has been such a serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is no longer appropriate for the company to retain its licence.

Where performance is concerned, any application for a special administration regime would have to be supported by a robust and compelling body of evidence and would ultimately need to satisfy the courts. Bringing a case forward without sufficient evidence would not only risk the failure of that case, but waste a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. For any case brought forward, the Government and Ofwat would need to be convinced that there was a robust and compelling body of evidence. That is quite different from what is presented out there too often—that this is just a button the Government can press at will.

[Calum Miller]

I am glad the Minister has moved on to the substance of DEFRA’s case. Will she clarify for my residents whether she considers a company that is spending 33% of the income it gets from customers on servicing its debt and paying a 10% premium on that debt is actually viable as a company? Will she set out for the House what she considers to be the measure of insolvency for a privately held monopoly?

[Emma Hardy]

As I have just said, on the issue of performance, cases have to be brought forward to court, and the court must be convinced that the company is not performing—I will move on to insolvency.

This issue is why regulators start by using the full range of supervisory and enforcement powers available to them where appropriate. Companies must be held to account, put forward credible plans to improve and deliver for customers on the environment. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we are introducing a new performance improvement regime through the clean water Bill.

The performance improvement regime will help to prevent poorly performing companies from falling into a cycle of decline, allowing regulators to step in before a company approaches the point of failure. It will strengthen accountability, support improvements in performance and provide a clearer pathway for intervention long before special administration may be required.

Let me address another misconception about special administration. Some suggest that placing a company into special administration would simply allow the Government to take over and run the company directly. That is not how the regime works. A special administrator is appointed by a court and has specific legal duties and objectives. It must manage the company’s affairs, businesses and property for the statutory purposes set out in the Water Industry Act.

The special administrator’s primary responsibility is to ensure the continued delivery of essential water and waste water services while securing a long-term solution for the business. Depending on the circumstances, that could mean rescuing the company, such as through a restructuring, or transferring it as a going concern to new owners. That is why the special administration regime exists to protect customers and maintain vital public services while providing a framework for recovery or transfer. Customers continue to receive their services throughout the process, and the special administrator operates under the supervision of the court and within a clear legal framework.

I know the hon. Member for Witney is particularly concerned about whether the consortium meets the criteria of acting as the ultimate controller of Thames Water. Let me use this opportunity to address his concerns. The classification of ultimate controller is a matter for Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, by reference to the terms of the company’s licence. Ofwat has given a detailed explanation of why it does not consider the creditors to be the ultimate controllers of the company in its letter to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), dated 8 September 2025.

Ofwat has stated that one of the reasons why it does not believe creditors are in a position to materially influence the company’s policies or affairs is that it does not have the right to appoint directors to the board, and it does not hold any governance or veto rights over the Thames Water business plan or other strategic decisions that the company’s board is making. I am reassured that it has reviewed the matter and that the ultimate controller of the company has not changed—

[Charlie Maynard]

How is that possible?

[Emma Hardy]

This is the thing with the hon. Gentleman: he makes many assertions in this House when he stands up to comment, but then he refuses to allow me to address and answer them. I am still answering his point about the ultimate controller. If he wants to ask me a question, he should have the decency and respect to listen to the answer.

I am also reassured that Ofwat will continue to keep the position of Thames Water’s ultimate controllers under review, and that it has made clear to the company its expectation that the company will continue to monitor whether there is, or may be, a change to the ultimate controller position.

I hope that what I have said has introduced a few facts to what can otherwise be quite an inflamed conversation. This Government are serious about tackling water company failure, acting on behalf of customers and protecting the environment. We have demonstrated this with the action we took on our very first day in office, and the action we have taken every day since. I am always happy to discuss issues related to special administration. I have held a private briefing with the hon. Member for Witney before. I would do so again, but what I do not like is when things are presented to the House in a way that is—I am not allowed to say dishonest, so how can I put this?—incorrect. This Government will always act in the national interest, and while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities, including being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What steps she is taking to help tackle river pollution.

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

This Government inherited record levels of river pollution. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, making pollution cover-ups a criminal offence; more than doubled the number of Environment Agency inspections to 10,000 a year; and, only yesterday, introduced automatic fines for polluting water companies. Our clean water Bill will stop water companies marking their own homework and deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.

[Rachael Maskell]

This weekend, I will be competing in York’s dragon boat race on the River Ouse, but with 3,779 sewage dumps last year, the river is the second worst for pollution. The clean water Bill gives us the opportunity to take control of our water, ending the cycle of profiteering from failure, leaving our rivers full of sewage and chemicals and inaccessible to swimmers, rowers and all who enjoy them. Will the Minister urgently review her plans and take water back under public ownership, so that we can clean up this dirty business?

[Emma Hardy]

I wish my hon. Friend and her team the very best of luck in this weekend’s boat race, and I share her outrage at the amount of pollution we are seeing in so many of our beautiful rivers. One of the things in our clean water Bill that is worth highlighting is the introduction of regional planning, to give local communities more say over the water system in their area.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

In 2025, sewage was dumped into the Ashridge stream, Emm brook, Barkham brook and the River Loddon in my constituency. Residents are thoroughly fed up with Thames Water’s repeated pollution and lack of accountability. Will the Government introduce mutual ownership of water companies, professionally managed, to put customers and the environment first?

[Emma Hardy]

I also share the hon. Gentleman’s outrage at the amount of pollution he is seeing in the environment, and recognise how much this impacts not only the local environment, but the people who live in his area. As he knows, the White Paper we published states that we will develop a clear transitional process for companies that wish to explore alternative forms of ownership, including not-for-profits and mutuals.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the Teddington direct river abstraction proposal on the environment.

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

Without action, we face a possible water supply deficit of 5 billion litres a day by 2055. This is why projects such as the Teddington direct river abstraction scheme are vital, to help secure London’s water supply during droughts. Any discharges to the Thames from this scheme will be subject to strict water quality assessments.

[Sarah Olney]

Two months ago, Ham and Kingston riverside became the first site in London to gain bathing water status, but Thames Water’s ill-conceived Teddington direct river abstraction proposal will see treated sewage discharged into the Thames above Teddington lock. Thames Water has submitted a report to the Environment Agency on the testing of a pilot plant, which shows that after just one month, the water quality would fail to maintain PFOS chemicals within regulatory limits. That bathing site is already a popular destination for local residents. It would be a travesty if Thames Water were allowed to dump treated sewage into the stream, so will the Minister meet me to discuss the environmental and social impact of the Teddington direct river abstraction proposal?

[Emma Hardy]

I recognise that Ham and Kingston riverside is one of the first designated bathing water spots in the whole of London, which is quite exciting for the city. When we designate bathing water sites, the water quality is monitored regularly throughout the season. That information is made publicly available, and of course, any allowance for any abstraction scheme or water recycling scheme will be subject to strict environmental tests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to help tackle pollution in the River Wye.

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

The level of pollution in the River Wye is unacceptable and we are working to accelerate progress to tackle it, including by funding a £1 million research programme to identify sources of pollution and develop practical solutions to improve water quality. We are also rolling out early pilots of regional planning, which involved a workshop with stakeholders in the Severn region on 15 May.

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank the Minister for all her hard work on the River Wye, but as she knows, time is running out for that iconic river. With temperatures rising to dangerous levels, our fish stocks will be further affected. The Wye needs a water protection zone across the English and Welsh parts of the river to mandate larger riverside buffer zones, prevent soil erosion and force authorities to crack down on polluters. The proposed clean water Bill could give the Minister an opportunity to bring in a water protection zone, so can she promise today that she will do that and make sure that this Government are the one to save the River Wye?

[Emma Hardy]

I recognise all the important work that my hon. Friend has put into this important campaign, and how much she cares about protecting this beautiful river. We will continue to work with the Environment Agency to explore all the available options, which include, of course, a water protection zone. Any designation must be evidence-led and targeted to ensure that the right measures are in place to tackle pollution effectively and to deliver lasting improvements to water quality.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

My constituency has been devastated by water pollution. We are now nearly seven years into a planning moratorium that has decimated the construction industry, because of pollution in the River Lugg, a tributary of the Wye. We are 10 years on from the first court case that said the Government should publish a plan to clean it up, but that plan, last year, set out that the current measures will not get close to fixing the problem. We urgently need a water protection zone. Will the Minister come to North Herefordshire to meet local campaigners, citizen scientists and farmers to understand why we need that water protection zone, and make a commitment to bring one in to finally resolve this problem?

[Emma Hardy]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), we are working with the EA to explore all the available options, which includes a water protection zone. It is an incredibly important issue, and I know how much the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) cares about it —I recognise that the Wye is a beautiful river. We have the £1 million research project, which is working directly with farmers and land managers. The EA has already conducted 1,246 farm inspections and issued 1,183 improvement actions around the River Wye since 2022.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

10. What progress she has made on implementing the waste crime action plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T7. The current heatwave shows no signs of abating, and during such times the demand for water increases. The water companies are already imposing restrictions on the supply of water, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the water supply and when will she consider nationwide restrictions?

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

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Last Thursday I met some of the water companies from the areas that will have the extreme heatwave, to be reassured that they will not run out of water during that period. Ofwat has also launched a public information campaign about the value of water. He will know from my previous answers that we have the water delivery taskforce, which is looking at water supply, house building ambition and growth to ensure that we have the water we need. It is one of the reasons we need to get on with building the nine reservoirs, as none have been built for the past 30 years.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

T4. The Secretary of State recently met my constituent Reuben Santer, whose case was featured in the “Dirty Business” documentary. Reuben campaigns to ensure that real-time sewage information is available to bathers at the beachside. Will the Minister work with local councils and water companies to explore the feasibility of such a scheme?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend raises a hugely important topic, and Reuben’s story was extremely moving to hear at first hand. I extend my deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have been affected by sickness through using the water around England, and I share their anger, outrage and desire for change. We reformed the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 so that they are fit for purpose, and we are looking at water quality classification information. We also have the Environment Agency’s Swimfo website. We will continue to look at how we can best keep bathers safe.

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

T8. The Minister has heard from both sides of the House this morning about the deepening crisis for independent pig producers and farmers. There are concerns that a quasi-cartel might be operating, to the detriment of small independent producers. Will the Minister consider using his powers to make a referral to the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator or the Competition and Markets Authority, so that those producers can be protected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The beautiful River Wey runs through my constituency, but storm overflows from the Farnham sewage treatment works are increasingly polluting the river, affecting my residents and businesses and those further afield, including the Peper Harow Park fly fishers in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). What discussions is the Minister having with Thames Water about stopping the discharges from the Farnham sewage works?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Member is right to feel outraged at the amount of pollution and the situation with Thames Water. He will have heard the Secretary of State’s comments on what we are doing on Thames Water and her early views on the original deal put forward by the creditors to clean this up. That is why we took action with the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to bring in tougher regulation, and why just yesterday we announced automatic penalties for companies that continue to pollute.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

The flooding outside Tesco in Stafford is a great example of why holding local authorities to account on drainage really matters. I recently learned that the drains were last cleaned in 2020, during covid; without regular maintenance, they will continue to block. While I am glad that it looks like a fix is finally on its way, routine drain clearance should not require an MP’s intervention. Will the Minister tell me and the House what she can do to ensure that council leadership meets its basic maintenance obligations, before the next rainfall shows that maintenance has not been done again?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no excuse for not maintaining flood defences. The Government need to hold the local authority to account for that. It has had an increased settlement and has the money with which to do the job. I hope that this lack of action by the local authority is noted by voters at the next election.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Draft Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 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 Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026.

It is now an extra pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, as I am slightly less warm than I was a few moments ago.

The regulations were laid before the House on 3 June. They are an important step towards enabling the deployment of Rolls-Royce small modular reactors in the UK, supporting our energy security, net zero and economic growth. They give legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that the technology is justified under the UK’s regulatory framework for practices involving ionising radiation.

The regulations do not give approval for the building, use or funding of small modular reactors, but set out that legally the Secretary of State’s decision was justified. That means that the technology’s benefits outweigh the potential risks to health from radiation exposure, allowing it to proceed towards deployment in the UK. The Secretary of State identified a range of benefits. The Rolls-Royce SMR has the potential to provide reliable low carbon electricity at scale, helping to power homes and meet growing demand, while supporting the transition to net zero.

The technology is based on well understood pressurised water reactor technology and can contribute to a more secure home grown energy system, reducing reliance on imports. The development and deployment of the technology are also expected to create opportunities for UK jobs, manufacturing and supply chains.

The benefits were weighed against the potential detriment. The evidence indicates that radiological health risks would be low, with well established regulatory arrangements in place to limit exposure. The assessment also found that the technology would not introduce new categories of radioactive waste and that waste can be managed through existing UK arrangements, including the future geological disposal programme for the most hazardous waste. Wider environmental impacts are considered manageable, with site-specific issues addressed through the UK’s planning and permitting regimes.

This decision follows a thorough, evidence-based process informed by independent regulators, statutory consultees and a public consultation in 2025. There were 50 responses to that consultation. Most respondents agreed that this is a new class of practice and that there was sufficient evidence to assess the technology. All views were considered alongside regulators’ advice before the Secretary of State reached her decision.

This is a generic, non-site-specific decision: it does not grant permission to build or operate a reactor anywhere in the United Kingdom. Any future project would be subject to the UK’s established independent regulatory processes involving environmental permitting, nuclear site licensing and planning consent. Those are separate decisions taken later on a site-specific basis. That ensures that issues such as safety, security, environmental protection and waste management are subject to detailed, independent assessment before any project can be brought.

The regulations extend across the United Kingdom but do not require any part of the UK to host such a facility. They do not change devolved responsibilities: matters such as planning, environmental protections and waste management remain subject to the relevant devolved arrangements.

In summary, the regulations give legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that the benefits of Rolls-Royce SMRs outweigh their potential radiological health detriment. This statutory instrument is a necessary step within the UK’s regulatory framework to enable that potential. Together, the evidence supports a clear conclusion: this technology will support energy transition and net zero, and it will contribute to the UK economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for supporting the regulations. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley asked about delivery timelines; obviously, those are not determined through the justification process. Industry has set out indicative timelines for deployment, which are subject to a separate decision and sit outside the scope of this instrument.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the matter and will make sure that it is passed on to the Department for Business and Trade, which is the responsible Department. I share his excitement about the high-skilled jobs that this can bring to the UK and how it can give wider socioeconomic benefits. I also share the positivity expressed by the Liberal Democrats.

The evidence provides clear and consistent picture. The risks are low and this technology offers real benefit for energy security, net zero and jobs in supply chains in the UK. It is right that this practice should be justified under the UK’s regulatory framework. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Flood Re: Reform

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Written Statements

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

Please refer to the oral statement made earlier today.

[HCWS174]

Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the opportunity to update the House on the reforms that Flood Re is announcing today, with the support of this Government. The changes will ensure that Flood Re remains fair, sustainable and focused on those who need it most, while supporting a transition to a more resilient insurance market by 2039.

Flood risk unites Members across this House. We all recognise the devastating impact that flooding has on people and communities and the importance of having access to affordable insurance. That is why this Government have put a record amount of investment into flood protections and simplified the funding rules. This year alone, we have unlocked £1.4 billion to enhance flood resilience across England, funding more than 600 projects and better protecting more than 70,000 properties from the devastating impacts of flooding. Despite that record investment, flooding is an ever-increasing risk.

Flood Re was established to manage a transition to prices that better reflect underlying flood risk and promote the affordability and availability of insurance. Since its launch, Flood Re has been a big success, and it is a strong example of Government and industry working together to address systemic risk—a partnership that started to be strengthened under a Labour Government after the 2007 floods.

Flood Re works by receiving a subsidy paid for by households that buy insurance. That money is used to purchase insurance so that households that would not be able to get insurance in an open market have affordable premiums. However, the context in which Flood Re operates has changed; rising claims, higher reinsurance costs and more properties being identified as at risk are placing increased pressure on the scheme.

We now have a perverse system in which money collected from all insurance customers, from all parts of the country and all income brackets, is flowing to the richest households in the country. That is not fair and needs to change. In three of the last four years, Flood Re has spent more on repairing homes in the most expensive council tax bands of G and H, which make up less than 4% of UK homes, than it has spent on repairing homes in council tax bands A and B, which make up around 45% of homes.

Let me give an example that shows why change is necessary. In 2025 a property near a river was flooded, resulting in a claim cost to Flood Re of more than £3 million. The property had very limited flood resilience measures in place, and the claim covered extensive restoration costs, including a quad garage, an indoor swimming pool, a jacuzzi and gym, a music room and den, a machinery storage unit, an outdoor astroturf padel court, and a five-a-side football pitch.

It is right that all properties are insured, but without reform of Flood Re, we will continue to have a system in which average-income and low-income households are subsidising flood insurance for the richest households in the country. That is why reform of Flood Re is needed—not to set a new policy direction, but to restore it to its original purpose. That is what we are doing.

First, Flood Re will work with insurers to reform its premium model so that support is better targeted. It will aim to make premiums as fair as possible across different council tax bands, regions and areas. Secondly, Flood Re will introduce a cap on the claims that insurers can pass to it, limiting payouts to an agreed level, with insurance companies covering the remainder. That will be worked out with Flood Re and insurers.

Thirdly, I have spoken to people who have lost everything through flooding and have been unable to afford contents insurance, so I am delighted that Flood Re is more than halving the premiums it charges to insurers for contents-only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B to £25 a year from April 2027. This Government are restoring fairness. We are making insurance affordable and helping with cost of living pressure. Finally, Flood Re will improve efficiency, make better use of its resources and reduce reliance on costly reinsurance while maintaining financial resilience.

However, to protect all homes from ongoing flood risk, we need more than just floor insurance and large flood defences; we need individual homes to become more flood resilient. That is why Flood Re will work with insurers and lenders to introduce flood performance certificates, helping households to better understand their flood risk and ensuring that if they take actions to make their homes more resilient, that is reflected in the cost of their premiums. That builds on the work of the recommendations in the “FloodReady” report. Flood Re will also strengthen incentives for Build Back Better, a UK home insurance sector initiative that, instead of simply restoring a home to a condition exactly as it was before, allows an additional £10,000 as part of the insurance claim to improve the flood resilience of the home.

These reforms will be implemented from 2028, with the reduction in contents premiums for council tax bands A and B taking effect from April 2027. Flood Re will keep the scheme’s eligibility criteria under review, including how it applies to leaseholders.

Under this Government, more homes are better protected from flooding than they were when we came into government. Our country will become more resilient to flooding as homes are incentivised to take action with flood performance certificates, and the 45% of people living in average-income and low-income households will be able to afford to protect their homes from the devastation of flooding. That is the difference that a Labour Government make, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and for our recent conversations about flooding in Somerset.

Flooding is a huge challenge for areas across the country. Some 6.3 million properties in England are currently located in areas that are at risk of flooding, including many in my constituency. When floods occur, the Environment Agency, local volunteer groups and farmers work to help people quickly, often in difficult circumstances. I was humbled and deeply proud to see the way the community pulled together in affected areas during the flooding earlier this year, particularly in Moorland and Fordgate. The Minister knows how seriously I take flooding, and has engaged with me following my requests for stronger national support, clearer local responsibilities, more dredging and improved pumping capacity.

The previous Conservative Government took real action to prevent flooding and protect homes and businesses, ensuring that over 600,000 properties were better protected from flooding and coastal erosion. Between 2015 and 2024, over 900,000 acres of farmland were also protected. In 2020 the previous Government announced a doubling of capital funding for flood defences in England, which rose to £5.6 billion from 2021 to 2027.

Flood Re was set up under the former Conservative Government, and it remains an important scheme to promote the availability and affordability of flood insurance for eligible homes. Its recent accounts report contains serious warnings for Ministers. Flood Re is clear that

“the external environment has changed materially, with higher climate-driven loss volatility, tighter global reinsurance capacity and greater pressure on affordability.”

It says that the scheme is now retaining higher levels of risk and facing “increased liability exposure”. At the same time, Flood Re warns that the scheme is under structural pressure. Its board has said that improved flood mapping has led to

“more properties being classified as high risk…including a growing number of higher-value homes”,

and that without change, the scheme risks being asked to carry

“unsustainable levels of exposure and cost.”

As such, will the Minister please explain what steps she is taking to ensure that Flood Re’s growing pressures do not result in additional costs for households through higher insurance bills? Will Ministers bring forward a credible, long-term flood resilience plan? Do the Government have plans to include businesses in Flood Re? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of these changes on households that are asset-rich but income-poor, including pensioners living in higher-band homes in flood risk areas? In her statement, the Minister said that Flood Re would reform its premium model across council tax bands and regions. Will she publish the modelling behind those changes, including regional impacts, so that households can see what this means for them? Flood performance certificates may help households understand risk, but will the Minister confirm who will pay for them? Will they be mandatory, and will they affect mortgage availability?

Flood Re has done valuable work, but households continue to need affordable insurance. They also need a Government who are serious about flood prevention, resilient homes, and long-term protection for communities. Conservative Members will always work with the Government to ensure that every person living in a property that is vulnerable to flooding gets the support they need.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I recognise his commitment to flood protection. He referenced our meeting, at which we discussed the £50 million that we are putting into Somerset because of its particular landscape and challenges. He is right to highlight the accounts that Flood Re has produced; without reform or change, we would be in a poor situation. Flood Re has been an amazing success, but to continue for the next 10 years, it needs to change. That is why we are introducing the changes that I have mentioned: targeting those who most need support by introducing a cap, making contents cover cheaper for lower council tax bands, and the work on the premium model. One of the other changes, which is probably not as eye-catching, is allowing Flood Re access to some of its trapped capital to make reinsurance costs cheaper. All of the reforms that Flood Re is introducing are intended to ensure that it is sustainable and keeps going.

Turning to continued support for flood protection, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have put the most money into flood protection of any Government ever, with £10.5 billion committed for the next 10 years. There are no current plans to include businesses because, as I said, Flood Re works by levying every insurance company; if we were to include businesses, we would be levying every business in the country to pay for it. For people in the top council tax bands, we are looking at flood performance certificates, so that if they can take action to improve the resilience of their home, that will be reflected in their premiums. We are doing some pilots, and I have been pushing insurance companies and others to get those pilots out the door as quickly as possible. We are not just looking at the top council tax bands; we are also looking at people in social housing to see how flood performance certificates could work.

As for when these changes are going to take place, contents insurance changes will take effect from 2027, but the cap will be from 2028. Up until that period, Flood Re will be carrying out extensive engagement with insurers and other people to make sure they are setting affordable limits. This is all about ensuring that Flood Re is there for the next 10 years.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. The vital importance of protecting and insuring people against flooding is highlighted by the case of my constituents who live next to Thingwall allotments, where extensive surface water flooding has blighted their lives for four years. Residents of Abbeystead Road have been forced to continually use flood sacks, sandbags and pumps to protect their homes, and gardens have become unusable. I am particularly concerned about the welfare of elderly constituents in poor health and families with children. Despite my representations over the past four years, Liverpool city council and United Utilities have not resolved the issue; instead, the council is sending tankers to pump out the water, at what must be considerable cost. I have written to the Minister, and although I know she is extremely busy, will she meet me, residents, Liverpool city council and United Utilities to find a resolution once and for all?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight how difficult it is for people to continually have to take action, especially elderly people, as well as the mental health impact of thinking they are going to have to do something to try to protect their home every time it rains. I would be happy to help convene a meeting with all the relevant parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

We Liberal Democrats support the Flood Re scheme and the protection it provides, but we are concerned that the package still risks falling short in a few ways. We agree that it cannot be right for lower-income households to subsidise the most expensive properties. Targeting support more fairly is overdue, but fairness must also mean reducing costs at source, which means a far stronger focus on prevention. We are still spending billions reacting to floods rather than systematically reducing risk. Flood Re’s future must be tied more clearly to resilient homes, sustainable drainage, and a planning system that stops putting people in harm’s way in the first place. That includes progressing schemes such as Guildford’s flood alleviation scheme more quickly through greater Government support, which would protect homes and unlock sustainable brownfield development. Without doing this, we are merely rearranging who pays for failure.

The proposals on flood performance certificates and Build Back Better are welcome, but they remain incremental. We need a step change—embedding resilience upgrades as standard, ensuring that insurers reward households that act, and bringing lenders fully into the framework. Serious gaps also remain: millions are excluded from Flood Re, including many leaseholders and those in homes built after 2009. If we are serious about fairness, those gaps must be addressed.

Finally, the transition to a risk-reflective market by 2039 cannot simply mean a cliff edge and higher premiums for those most exposed. Reform is needed, but it must be matched by ambition. Fairness, resilience and prevention must go hand in hand.

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady is quite right to say that we need to take action on the risk of flooding. That is why this Government are putting the most money into flood protection and taking action against flooding of any Government ever. In our first year in government, we delivered 151 flood schemes, better protecting more than 24,000 homes; that was after we put £108 million into maintenance to restore and repair our flood defences, many of which were in a poor condition. We are also putting £300 million into natural flood management—again, the most money any Government have ever put in. We have put in another £30 million for coastal adaption, and we have reformed the flood funding formula to ensure that it gives proper weight to deprivation, so that the communities that are most affected by flooding and least able to recover have more support. Total funding for internal drainage boards is £91 million, so I think we have ticked the box for “Have this Government put their money where their mouth is when it comes to protecting our country from flooding?”

We have not only done that; we are also looking at sustainable urban drainage systems and at introducing flood performance certificates, so that we can reward homes that have become more resilient to flooding. We are also looking at a fundamental change to how we address resilience and flooding as a country. When flooding happens, the people who go out there and do the work in the communities—whether local people, the Environment Agency or all the emergency services—deserve our absolute support, because the only thing I cannot protect this country against is climate change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The 500 households in Chesterfield that were flooded during Storm Babet, almost all of which were in council tax bands A and B, will welcome the Government’s intention to make sure that this scheme remains sustainable. It is important to remember that flood victims are just that— victims. They are not the cause of their problems; they are victims of our global failure to take the requisite steps on climate change, and of previous Governments’ and the water industry’s under-investment in flood protection. The example that the Minister raised is obviously ridiculous, and there is a need for those at flood risk to take the action they can to protect their houses. What assessment have the Government made of how many households will see increases in their premiums as a result of the steps being taken? Can the Minister assure us that households will not be unable to get insured, leaving us in the position we were in before Flood Re existed?

[Emma Hardy]

I know how much my hon. Friend cares about this issue. Indeed, we have visited some of the areas in his constituency that have been flooded. I remember the devastating loss in his constituency prior to the election; he was out there on the frontline, helping to lead some of the flood recovery work.

On the impact of this change, we need to work carefully with insurers on Flood Re. We have said we will introduce the cap by 2028 to enable them to have the time to work through things carefully and properly. It is about fairness. Council tax bands G and H represent 4% of properties, yet they make up 20% of claims on Flood Re. We want to make this change in conjunction with insurers. Piloting the flood performance certificates will be so important, and that has to be done hand in hand with people. We want to incentivise people by saying, “If you take action to improve your home and make it more resilient to flooding, you will be rewarded with lower premiums.” We are trying to encourage people to do the right thing where they can, while recognising that there are people at other end of the scale—some of the people we have seen in my hon. Friend’s constituency—who are simply unable, for various reasons, to take action to improve the resilience of their own property. It is all about keeping things in balance.

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

In West Worcestershire we have the River Severn, the River Avon, the River Teme and many brooks, so flooding is a perennial issue. Over the years, we have built many new flood defence schemes. I thank the Minister personally for her role in the Severn Stoke scheme, which is currently under construction. Unfortunately, the Tenbury Wells scheme has been cancelled, and there will be individual property-level resilience in that town. Does the Minister have any advice for the town council, which is unable to get any insurance now? Will she consider changes to the Flood Re scheme to enable properties that have benefited from flood resilience measures to get access to Flood Re for their insurance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am pleased to be responding to the hon. Lady, because I think that the very first Adjournment debate I had as a Minister was with her and it was about flooding. It is nice that whenever I make a statement about flooding, I already know who will be in the room. I commend her on her tireless campaigning on this issue and the commitment she has shown to her constituents. I have been pleased to go and see those property flood resilience measures and the difference they have made to communities. Flood performance certificates will be piloted, and those communities are an example of where householders have taken measures—albeit in this case through the Environment Agency—to better protect their homes from flooding. When people do that, it should be reflected in their premiums, and there is not currently a way to do that. The system looks at postcodes and areas, and gives people a premium on that basis, but we want to make it more intelligent, so that it can recognise if someone has made their home more resilient to flooding—that should mean that they have cheaper premiums.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that I spent most of my career supporting the most vulnerable people in communities that had been flooded, and helping them to find ways to support their mental health. It is not unknown for many of them to have post-traumatic stress disorder post floods. That can be brought on by a number of triggers, including the sound of rain on the window or the anxiety of worrying about being able to insure a house post floods. The reduction of contents-only insurance to £25 a year for bands A and B will be transformative. Does the Minister agree that it will make such a difference in helping lower-income households and in ensuring that Flood Re protects the things that matter most to people?

[Emma Hardy]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because before he was elected as a Member of Parliament, he was running part of the Living With Water project in my constituency, which looked at bringing together the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and the council to create more sustainable urban drainage to improve resilience to flooding. He played a tremendous role and has made a real difference to many people’s lives. I share his delight that Flood Re is more than halving the premiums it charges insurers for contents-only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B to £25 a year. That will make a real difference to people’s lives, making insurance more affordable for everybody.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on his clear response to this statement. My constituents in Brook Drive, Ruislip and all across the floodplain of the River Pinn are very interested in this issue, so I will ask the Minister two questions. In a borough where a tiny fraction of properties are in bands A and B, there is a risk that this change means that the cost of insurance will no longer be priced based upon the risk incurred at that property, but upon its council tax band. That risks shifting the provision from being a premium to simply being a tax based on the value of a property, which clearly would not be welcome and was not the original basis of Flood Re. Can she give the House a clear assurance that the claims experience data gathered by Flood Re will then be used by colleagues across Government to feed into such things as planning regulations, so that flood resilience can be built in to homes in the future?

[Emma Hardy]

The original purpose of Flood Re was to make flood insurance affordable for people who otherwise would not be able to access affordable insurance on the free market. This is not new policy, but returning Flood Re to the purpose for which it was created.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I welcome the focus on supporting low and middle-income households. The Minister will know that after the July 2021 floods in central London, denial of flood insurance or punitive excesses for people living in blocks of four or more flats has been a serious problem. That is a big chunk of my constituents. They cannot access Flood Re, because those properties are treated as commercial premises. What plans does the Minister have to address this issue?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are continuing to work with the Government, the regulator and industry to review the scheme eligibility criteria, including considering options to better support leaseholders.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Flood Re does need change. However, the Minister has not announced a key change that would make a difference for thousands of households in my North Norfolk constituency: establishing a “Coast Re” scheme for those homes at threat of erosion. They find themselves at huge risk and have no financial backing if the worst happens and they lose their home. My call is supported by the cross-party report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. There is not much coastal erosion in Manchester, but can the Minister please make a pitch for “Coast Re” with her new boss in the coming weeks?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and the EFRA Committee for their work. He will have heard our commitment to the £30 million coastal fund, which is looking at what we should do about managing coastal erosion and the risks of coastal flooding.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and I welcome the work to make the scheme fairer and more sustainable. Can she say a little more about the measures under way to encourage rewilding, the planting of trees and other measures further upstream in river catchments, as well as measures to encourage all landowners to behave responsibly and to stop temporary dams from building up under culverts, bridges or in other locations where localised flooding might otherwise happen?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend knows that I share his love of nature-based solutions and natural flood management, so he will be as delighted as I am that we are putting a minimum of £300 million into natural flood management under our current plans.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I think this is an important moment for us to remind all our constituents to check their insurance policies and make sure that they have sufficient cover, but on a practical note, may I ask whether the Minister expects the flood protection certificates to have the same status as energy performance certificates? Obviously that encourages improvement, but there may be a problem of stranded assets. I just want to be sure that we have thought about the impacts on the housing market and on social mobility.

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady is quite right. People should not only check their insurance to make sure that it covers everything, but check to ensure that they are covered for Build Back Better, because not every insurance company offers that cover at this moment. We will be piloting flood performance certificates as soon as possible, and as soon as they are ready I will be more than happy to update the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee with more details of exactly how this will work and where.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

There were serious floods in Ruislip Gardens in 2024, which I have discussed with the Minister before; 100 homes were flooded, and access to ongoing affordable insurance was a major concern for many residents. Part of the flooding review recommended improved individual householder resilience measures, and I welcome some of the measures announced today to incentivise that—such as the flood performance certificates—but according to feedback that I have received, it can still be very expensive for cash-poor individuals to fund them up front. What options are being explored for access to affordable finance, and what other measures are being considered that might make this possible?

[Emma Hardy]

I well remember very well my hon. Friend raising the issue affecting his constituency. Let me reassure him. The flood performance certificate pilots will include social housing and lower-income communities, as we recognise that some will need support to increase their resilience. We are piloting the certificates across a range of different homes so that we can gather that intelligence before we decide what further steps to take.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Ilminster residents, like Krystal, who have houses on floodplains tell me that they cannot obtain insurance, although people living up the road can. The Minister has confirmed that the eligibility criteria remain under review. Will she commit to reviewing the exclusion of homes built after 2009, and will she also undertake to make the whole process fairer, so people like Krystal, throughout my constituency, can obtain affordable insurance?

[Emma Hardy]

I recognise how difficult it is when people cannot afford insurance. There are no current plans to look at homes built after 2009, but of course the Government always keep everything under review.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government have invested £45 million in flood defences in York. That will provide resilience until 2039, which coincides with the ending of the Flood Re scheme. It is important for us to think about how, in the longer term, we will support people with that risk-sharing approach. Will the Minister also consider and consult on the position of leaseholders, who are excluded from the scheme although they have responsibility and pay the costs for their own personal buildings?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the money that we are investing in York, not least owing to the formidable campaigning that she has undertaken for a long time, and also for identifying the need to look at the longer term. Of course Flood Re will continue to look at eligibility to ensure that it is acting according to the principles on which it was set up, to ensure that there is affordable insurance for all who need it.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I welcome the work of Flood Re. Later this month, I will be hosting its Floodmobile in my constituency, where 13% of properties are already at risk of flooding. However, according to experts at Flooded People UK, our capital spending on flood defences and maintenance is not at record levels; in fact, it is actually lower than the annual rates in the previous capital spend. Will the Minister commit herself to protecting households in all our constituencies, and to increasing the spending commitments above the level in the 10-year infrastructure plan?

[Emma Hardy]

I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. This Government have put more money into flood protection than any other Government on record: that is an absolute and indisputable fact. However, I do hope that he has a great time when the Floodmobile visits his constituency. It is fantastic, and demonstrates real, practical examples of ways in which people can take action to improve their flood resilience.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Residents of Catcliffe and Treeton in my constituency have suffered two devastating floods in the last decade or so. That means that, even if people are eligible for insurance from Flood Re, it is extremely expensive, and in some cases prohibitive. Can the Minister reassure us that that will not apply to, in particular, low-income householders, and that they will be able to obtain insurance? Let me finally put on record my gratitude to the volunteer flood wardens who, every time it rains, try to keep their communities safe.

[Emma Hardy]

I echo my hon. Friend’s gratitude to flood wardens and volunteers all over the country, and I know how much this issue means to her. I am delighted that Flood Re is halving the premium that it charges for contents-only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B. It will be reduced to £25 a year from April 2027, which will make a huge difference to the cost of living.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Might the Minister be able to say a few words about the increased number of flooding episodes in urban areas, especially those containing basement flats? My constituent Jackie ended up being done by her insurance company because its representatives could not make up their minds whether it was a storm or a flood. There was too much small print. The ombudsman could not stand up for Jackie, and she ended up £2,500 in the hole. I wonder whether Ministers could remind insurance companies of their duty not to lead people up the garden path, and to pay out when they should.

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: flood insurance companies should behave with integrity towards their customers. If he would like me to follow that up with the Association of British Insurers, I would be happy to do so.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement, and thank the Minister for her work. She has rightly observed that people are more likely to be at risk of flooding because of climate change, and that also brings with it a greater risk from coastal erosion. As she will know, my constituency lost 11 homes over the winter because of coastal erosion, which is set to put even more homes at risk over the years and decades ahead. In our report, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended the extension of Flood Re to Coastal Re. Will the Minister comment on that recommendation, and commit herself to looking at it further?

[Emma Hardy]

I know how difficult the loss of those homes has been for the hon. Lady and her constituents. Losing one’s home because of coastal erosion must be devastating. There are no current plans to consider Coastal Re, but, of course, Flood Re keeps eligibility criteria under review.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

In September 2024, my constituency experienced a month’s worth of rainfall in 36 hours, which led to the inundation of many homes. A constituent in Woodstock has described how her house and her annexe—into which she had poured her pension to convert it to a holiday let—were inundated. She is now unable to obtain any kind of insurance, including Flood Re insurance. She wrote this to me:

“ I am terrified to think about any rainfall that could damage my home and business again.”

Will the Minister look at that case, and at Flood Re eligibility for those at risk of surface flooding—as distinct from river flooding—and those whose business premises abut their homes?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concern about surface water flooding, which, owing to climate change and flash flooding, is becoming a greater risk than it ever was in previous years. As I have said, there are no current plans to look at businesses, but it should be possible for domestic properties to be covered by Flood Re. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about this, he can of course do so.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for her ongoing commitment to flood defences—both the natural flood management in which organisations such as Slow the Flow in my constituency specialise, and the more traditional types that have just been signed off for the town of Hebden Bridge.

More than half the homes in Calder Valley are in council tax bands A and B, and many of their residents live with the risk of flooding. In my community, the memory of the devastating Boxing Day floods in 2015, followed by those in February 2020, still loom large in people’s minds, and cause a great deal of anxiety. The lowering of the flooding element of their household insurance to just £25 will make a real difference to families with modest incomes. What practical steps will the Government take to encourage people to take up that offer, and to ensure that they understand what changes have been made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I absolutely love Slow the Flow, and I made a delightful visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency to look at the flood defences there. The halving of the contents-only flood element to £25 will make a huge difference to the cost of living. Flood Re policies should be automatically ceded by the insurance companies, and that should be clearly communicated. I am encouraging Flood Re and the insurance companies to ensure that communication is as clear as possible so that people know exactly what their rights are, particularly when it comes to accessibility to Build Back Better.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Walford Mill Crafts and Little Pickle at the Mill, the café, in Wimborne were under water in the aftermath of storm Chandra, but although it was a named storm, no flood recovery grants were available. Flood Re does not cover them, and flooding is excluded from their policies. Will the Minister consider action for commercial buildings such as Walford Mill so that they can continue their education work, protect the creators who work there and support their community—if not through Flood Re, by extending flood recovery grants to all named storms?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I absolutely recognise the impact that flooding has on businesses. Through the floods resilience taskforce, we have been looking at the various grants that are available. As she will know, that sits within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but conversations are happening across Departments.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

In Shrewsbury, we regularly suffer flooding along the River Severn and Rea brook, so I really welcome today’s announcement. The measures proposed reflect the common-sense and long-term solutions that my colleagues and I set out in the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on flooding resilience. We gave feedback from residents and businesses that insurance is not just unaffordable but, in some places, impossible to get. We requested that funding be prioritised for prevention, preparedness, mitigation and adaptation, rather than simply paid out each time floods hit, so it is so welcome to hear today that the long-term approach is that we will have flood performance certificates and Build Back Better, which will provide extra money not just to repair people’s homes post flooding, but to make them resilient against future floods. That is a much more effective use of public money, and provides longer-term support. It is great news for my residents, but what advice can I give to a business that has the same postcode and the same flood risk as others, but which is being quoted £40,000 for flood insurance?

[Emma Hardy]

I recognise the work that my hon. Friend has done on this issue through the Environmental Audit Committee. Although businesses are not eligible for Flood Re, the record amount of money that we are putting into flood defences should help to make flood insurance more affordable right across the country. Exactly as she says, building resilience and preparedness is what makes a difference, as well as insurance companies paying out every time there is a flood. We need to make our country more resilient, and that is a huge focus of the work I am doing.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

The Minister has rightly spoken of the flood resilience grant scheme, which is an important scheme, but residents of Wheatley in my constituency found out in September 2024 that they were ineligible for grants, because 2,000 homes need to be flooded before payments are triggered. That fundamentally disadvantages rural areas, because many villages will never reach the threshold, even if the entire village is flooded. That is really unfair and advantages urban areas over rural areas. Will the Minister look at that with Cabinet colleagues, so that we can better support rural areas?

[Emma Hardy]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, that particular scheme is supported by MHCLG. However, we have been having conversations about the best way that we can support people collectively as a Government in the floods resilience taskforce.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for her clear passion for this work. I welcome the reforms to ensure that the Flood Re scheme remains sustainable and financially viable in the medium term, and the £25 cap on flood excess for contents insurance for band A and band B properties will be particularly important to those who can least afford to be affected by flooding.

However, the Minister knows that investment in flood defences is the only way to transition to a fully resilient system by 2039. Residents in Woodborough in my constituency will welcome the reforms, but what they really want to see is investment in a Woodborough flood alleviation scheme, which is long overdue. Will the Minister commit to working with me to ensure that Woodborough receives its fair share of the £1.4 billion investment in flood defences next year? Will she also join me in paying tribute to the Woodborough Flood Action Group, which does outstanding work in protecting Woodborough village in my constituency?

[Emma Hardy]

I would be delighted to pay tribute to Woodborough Flood Action Group for tirelessly working to protect the local community. My hon. Friend is a formidable champion of his area, and I commend him for raising this issue with me again. It is a very exciting project, and I hope to be able to visit it at some point.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

A Government consultation on changes to the planning system closed on 10 March. It included consulting on weakening flood protection in planning guidance, which could lead to greater house building on land prone to flooding. To avoid the need for new insurance schemes such as Flood Re, which supports people after their homes have been flooded, the Government should seek to prevent house building in areas subject to flooding in the first place. When will the Government respond to the consultation that closed on 10 March?

[Emma Hardy]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a question for MHCLG, not DEFRA. However, we work closely with MHCLG to make sure that the homes that we desperately need in this country are built in areas that are not prone to flooding, and do not contribute to flooding elsewhere.

Water Supply in Kent

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 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, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this debate, and for his excellent work on the Environmental Audit Committee. I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate.

In the time I have, I will do my best to answer as many questions as possible, but I think we are generally united in our feelings about this company and its performance. I express my sympathy again for all those affected by the recent disruption to supply in Kent, and I echo Members’ concerns about the human impact that it had. We heard the story of the lady who had a miscarriage, and about the people who had to use wet wipes, so we can see the impact that the disruption had on people’s lives. This was more than just a supply outage; it has a fundamental impact on everyone’s lives.

Being without water is always very distressing, but that is particularly true during a period of hot weather and during the school half-term. As has been mentioned, it was the third major outage affecting customers. That is simply unacceptable. We all agree that it is important and right that the chair and CEO have resigned. I met the interim chair of South East Water twice during the incident, and I was clear that we need a focused plan for the summer.

We expect the weather to become hot again, so we expect people to increase the amount of water they use. South East Water needs to work more closely with local partners so that it can rebuild trust. Members highlighted that trust has been broken and needs to be restored. It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) had a positive meeting with the interim chair. Rebuilding trust will take a long time, but we hope that it is starting to show.

Weather can increase the demand for water—of course, it increased demand all around the country—but increased demand led to a supply outage at only one water company. One longer-term cause is the company’s failure to invest sufficiently in maintaining and strengthening its infrastructure. A reliable source of clean water is one of the fundamental foundations of a healthy, functioning society. We are rightly proud that we have some of the safest drinking water in the world, but that is no good if it fails to come out of the tap. The situation demands bold action to deliver fundamental, long-term reform, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.

I will try to answer as many questions as I can. Six desalination plants are planned, largely in the south and south-east. One plant will specifically supply water for Sizewell C. Another is currently in operation in the Thames area, but there are also plants planned for Norfolk, Lincolnshire and the south and east coasts.

Members asked what should happen if a company continues to fail. The ultimate action will be to consider special administration. Of course, there is a high bar for special administration on performance grounds. It requires a serious breach of principal duties or of an enforcement order such that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. I want to be clear that the Government are working with all water sector regulators to carefully monitor the performance of all water companies, and we stand ready to intervene, if required, to ensure the continued provision of a vital customer service.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) was right to highlight concerns about poor communication. I echo her support for a true transformation not just in delivery, but in culture, communication and everything that goes with it. She mentioned farms, as did a couple of other hon. Members. I understand from South East Water and other organisations in the Kent resilience forum, which looked at the risk to water supply for a range of locations, including farms, that in general water companies will look to supply alternative water for animals where they are able to, but that it is important for livestock keepers to have appropriate contingency plans. Obviously, if they are not receiving water, I am keen to hear about it.

I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). I hear his frustration and anger about this. He is right: we need to change things. The performance improvement regime that we are looking to introduce as part of our reforms is about doing that. Rather than being about intervening every time companies fail, it is about identifying poorly performing companies and getting in there early to support them in improving—it does what it says on the tin. Rather than waiting for failure in order to act, we say, “Okay, these are the poorly performing companies. We need to intervene early and look at why they are poorly performing. Is the reason leadership? Is it culture, asset standards or resilience? Is it that they have not got enough? What is the problem and what do we need to get in there?” That is one of our key reforms. If we are to build resilience, we have to get in there early and do something about it.

I come now to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). It was awful—disgusting—to hear about the sewage. He was right to talk about capacity in respect of water and waste water, as was the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). What are we going to do about water resources? We have a twin-track approach to improving water resilience that considers urgent action on water efficiency and reducing leaks—that is crucial—alongside investment in new supply infrastructure. We are trying to do both at the same time. The infrastructure includes reservoirs and water transfers, but they will not be ready and available tomorrow, so must consider water efficiency.

MHCLG recently ran a consultation, which closed in January, on reforming the statutory consultee system. MHCLG is considering the role of water and sewerage companies in planning applications as it reviews responses to the consultation.

In the meantime, colleagues in MHCLG are implementing a new plan-making system to ensure better join up between water and development planning processes. That includes prescribing water and sewerage companies in “requirement to assist” regulations so that they are obliged to assist with plan making where reasonably requested, and listing water and sewerage companies as consultation bodies, so that they are made aware of key plan-making consultations where they have an interest.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right to highlight specific failings, and I feel his exasperation. He pointed out the problems around trust. I wholeheartedly agree: it is very difficult to have trust in a company that continues to fail.

On the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), it is good that that £104 billion investment is there—that is really important. He made a good point about industry use of water. It is a bit bonkers that we use drinking water for cooling systems. I want to do something about that and about the lack of join up. We must look to the local resilience forum as well.

Have I missed anybody? I hope not. No one is shaking their head to tell me I have. In that case, I thank everyone for raising their concerns. I had better be quiet now!

Water Safety

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank everybody for what has been a really good debate. It shows Parliament at its best when we all try to work together for the same aim, and that is really important. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing the debate and for his powerful and moving words. I know him to be an incredibly decent and passionate man who is trying to do his best for his constituents.

With Drowning Prevention Week beginning this Saturday, there is no better moment for this House to turn its attention to keeping people safe in our waters. Next week will also be the launch of the water safety framework, which has been led by the Department for Education.

Before I respond to hon. Members on the policy substance, I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of all those who have lost their lives in water. I pay tribute to Sam’s family and the Mirror, who have been leading on this campaign. The fatalities we have seen during recent periods of warm weather, and the tragic deaths raised movingly in this room, underline the urgency of the issue. I pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and members of the public whose courage saves lives every day. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the Royal Life Saving Society, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Swim England and the National Water Safety Forum: their tireless work in prevention, education and rescue deserves the recognition of the House.

I will respond to some of the points made by hon. Members. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in paying tribute to Luke for his courage. I agree that learning to swim is crucial and so is learning to survive; I will ensure that the points she made on this issue are communicated to the Department for Education.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) in thanking the RNLI for its work. I am of course happy to pass on her thoughts on the education programme to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and to DFE. I share her concerns about restricting training for kayak rolling. That does not feel particularly sensible to me. We must not let concerns about minor damage get in the way of lifesaving training—I am happy to support there.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) always speaks with such authority and compassion. I join her in paying tribute to York Rescue Boat for its work, and also thank Humber Rescue for its work in my constituency. My hon. Friend is right to raise water quality as a hugely important issue. It is not just about water shock and drowning: the quality of the water can have such a detrimental impact on people’s health. It is important that we do not lose sight of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) spoke movingly about the tragic loss faced by her constituent and the importance of us all working together, and I thank her for her speech.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has campaigned on water safety for a long time. His ten-minute rule Bill brought this matter to my attention. He has met with me before about the issue and has been completely committed to it. I will take up his points about water company safety equipment personally with water companies. We are doing some work on how to ensure that reservoirs are generally kept safe, so I am happy to take that point away personally.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke caringly about Sam’s law. I am thinking of the best way to achieve that, and whether we need primary legislation or whether we can just do it. Let me take that point away and have a look at it.

In my constituency, Hull city council offers free swimming lessons during the summer for children. I hope that is something that many councils are able to offer. I have a personal frustration that Hull city council has still not opened Pickering Park pool, but I will not bring that into this debate.

[Sarah Russell]

It has been mentioned in this debate that there is great regional inequality, and that children in the most deprived areas are most likely to drown. Interventions solely focused on deprived areas concern me because there are considerable numbers of deprived children in England who do not live in deprived areas. We compound their disadvantage if we focus lifesaving decision making and resources only in those areas. I want to see deprived children across the whole country receive the assistance that they need—they should not be dying.

[Emma Hardy]

Without straying too far from the debate that we are having, the question of inequality is very interesting, especially with the news that the Conservative party wants to get rid of the public sector duty. We are actually looking at whether to expand that duty to include class as an inequality issue. Maybe if class was included in the public sector duty, we could ensure that we prioritise working-class children, who are more likely to drown, to receive the support that they need. However, that may be moving too far away from the topic of the debate.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speaks brilliantly in every debate that we are both involved in. I agree that it is important that we all learn to swim. He is right to highlight quarries as extremely dangerous to swim in, and how we need to be aware that, even though the water looks calm on the surface, there are dangers underneath.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) made an important point about national parks, and gave a thoughtful contribution on how they communicate and the role that they play. I am happy to pass that on to the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), to have a look at.

Water safety touches on public safety, education, local delivery, the environment and much more. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said, this issue is held by many different Departments. DEFRA looks at water quality. We look at bathing waters, as has been mentioned. We designate sites and monitor water quality so that people can make decisions about where to swim, but it is right to highlight that, even if somewhere is designated as bathing water, people still need to think about how safe it is to swim there. But our bathing water reforms do, for the first time, require physical safety to be explicitly considered before a site can be designated. That is a meaningful change that we brought in.

We also provide policy oversight and funding to the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency, which manage millions of miles of inland waterways. They look at risk assessments on high-risk locations, install lifesaving equipment where it is needed, run targeted safety campaigns, particularly during hot weather, and deliver education programmes, especially for young people. Both organisations support national campaigns such as the National Water Safety Forum’s “Respect the Water”, as well as partner campaigns such as the RNLI’s “Float to Live”, which provides simple, lifesaving advice on what someone should do if they get into difficulty in the water.

This issue is held across Government. In my time as Minister, I have found that sometimes when things are held across Government, they are owned by everybody and nobody at the same time, so I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in his call to convene a meeting of all responsible Departments, to sort out which actions need to be taken by which Department to move this issue forward.

The Department of Health has responsibility for public health, and there is also the Health and Safety Executive. The Department for Transport, through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, supports search and rescue, and contributes vital incident data to the national evidence base. Local authorities lead on frontline response and community safety. As many hon. Members mentioned, in education the national curriculum requires primary schools to teach children to swim. Then there are the prevention of future deaths reports and the powerful campaigning of families. The Secretary of State for Education has committed to strengthening water safety education.

Many different Departments need to work together, looking at what they are responsible for and making sure that they action things through their Department. I would be happy to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in convening that meeting. It is through all these efforts, working together and backed by Government, that we reduce risk, save lives and ensure that people can continue to enjoy our waters safely.

Flood Risk Management in England

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Written Statements

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

Investment programme performance in 2024-25 and 2025-26

Between April 2024 and March 2026, the Government invested £2.65 billion to construct new flood schemes and repair existing defences. This investment has made a significant contribution to improving flood resilience across the country.

Following a period of declining asset condition in previous years, this Government have acted to stabilise the condition of flood defence assets. When this Government took office, 92.1% of high consequence assets were at or above their required condition (Q2 2024-25). Thanks to the reprioritisation of £108 million into asset maintenance, this has increased to 93.0% by end of March 2026.

Over the last two years, Government investment has also enabled the completion of new flood defence schemes in every region of England. In total, nearly 62,000 properties have benefited from improved protection against flooding and coastal erosion—almost 10,000 more than the Environment Agency’s target.

Building on this progress, a new investment programme began on 1 April 2026, supported by the new funding rules the Government announced in October 2025. The reforms will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood defences in the right places by simplifying our funding rules. They will optimise funding between building new flood projects and maintaining existing defences and ensure that deprived communities continue to receive vital investment.

Targets for 2026-27

In the first year of the new programme, the Government will invest £1.4 billion, which will fund more than 600 projects across the country. This will contribute towards a target of 70,000 properties benefiting from flood risk management interventions by the end of March 2027. “Properties benefiting” is a new metric, replacing the previous “properties better protected”. It will count all properties benefiting from a reduction in flood and coastal erosion risk due to new flood interventions and prevention of risk increases due to maintenance of existing assets. Unlike the previous metric, it will allow us to capture the impact of a wider range of resilience measures, such as nature-based solutions, property flood resilience and sustainable drainage systems.

The Government will also continue to prioritise asset condition. The target for high consequence assets at or above required condition will increase from 92% in 2025-26 to 93.5% in 2026-27.

Investment in 2026-27 will also deliver significant environmental benefits. Projects funded this year are expected to create or improve approximately 800 hectares of habitat and enhance some 250 kilometres of rivers.

The programme will run for ten years to March 2036. During the first three years up to March 2029, the Government will invest £4.2 billion in capital and resource funding.

The Government have committed £7.9 billion capital funding over the whole of the 10-year programme period. Resource funding for the period 2028-29 to 2035-36 will be confirmed at future spending reviews.

This £7.9 billion capital investment, plus the £2.65 billion we spent during the past two years, means that this Government have committed to investing at least £10.5 billion by March 2036.

This long-term commitment will strengthen the nation’s resilience to flooding and provide sustained protection for communities across the country.

Summary of floods funding figures:

£2.65 billion—2-year capital and resource spend 2024-25 and 2025-26

£4.2 billion—3-year capital and resource spend 2026-27, 2027-28 and 2028-29

£1.4 billion—1-year capital and resource spend 2026-27

£7.9 billion—10-year committed capital spend between 2026-27 and 2035-36

£10.5 billion—£7.9 billion committed capital spend between 2026-27 and 2035-36, plus £2.65 billion total spend in 2024-25 and 2025-26

These are spending allocation figures, as announced in February 2025 (£2.65 billion), June 2025 (£4.2 billion) and March 2026 (£1.4 billion). An official statistics publication will follow later in the year providing a more comprehensive summary of floods spending allocations and expenditure from previous years.

Rural flood resilience

This Government are committed to supporting farmers, strengthening food security, and building the resilience of rural communities to flooding. Frequent storms and record rainfall in recent years have highlighted the vulnerability of our farmland and rural communities to flooding and the critical role that well-maintained flood defences and watercourses play in supporting agricultural productivity and rural resilience.

Through the £91 million internal drainage board fund, 94 internal drainage boards have delivered over 270 projects across the country, providing benefits to more than 450,000 hectares of farmland and 250,000 properties. These projects are extending the lifespan of flood assets by an average of 27 years.

The internal drainage board fund has been a considerable success, but I also know that some areas have been hit harder than others by heavy rainfall. This includes Somerset, which I visited earlier this year, to hear first-hand from communities who have been deeply affected.

I am pleased to announce we are providing £50 million to Somerset council to improve local flood resilience. Somerset council will oversee delivery of the funding and will work closely with local partners to deliver local actions. Despite being low lying, and having high water level management costs, Somerset did not benefit significantly from the internal drainage board fund due to the broad ownership of flood assets across the county. This targeted funding addresses this and recognises the unique challenges the area faces. Fund due to the broad ownership of flood assets across the county. This targeted funding addresses this and recognises the unique challenges the area faces.

The funding is in addition to the record level of investment in the flood investment programme.

National forecasting and warning service

Yesterday the latest floods resilience taskforce met, with a focus on improving public engagement with flood risk. Ensuring individuals and communities have the information they need, helps them to understand the risks but also to take the appropriate action.

To support this, the Environment Agency is launching a new national forecasting and warning service. This is a substantial upgrade to England’s flood warning capability, strengthening public safety by delivering clearer, more consistent and more reliable flood forecasts and warnings nationwide.

[HCWS97]