Water Resources Infrastructure: National Policy Statement

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Written Statements

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

In line with the Government’s ambition to update relevant national policy statements within their first year, today I intend to lay an update by way of non-material amendments to the national policy statement for water resources infrastructure.

Growth is one of the Prime Minister’s five defining missions of this Government.

This update will support growth by making planning decisions for water resources infrastructure quicker and easier.

This will provide certainty to the water industry and support the delivery of nine new reservoirs and the Government’s plans to get Britain building 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.

Water resources management plans determine what additional water resources infrastructure is needed for at least the next 25 years and are comprehensively revised every five years. The plans are publicly consulted on and the options within them are scrutinised by regulators before being approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The updated national policy statement provides a clearer link to final water resources management plans, as part of the water resources statutory framework, so that the “need” for any project within these approved plans will not need to be reassessed at the examination stage of a development consent order application.

This national policy statement also makes clear the Government’s commitment to the water and development sectors, and that water resources projects are critical to growth.

[HCWS792]

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Emma Hardy Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a privilege to speak on Third Reading. I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for taking the Bill through the House.

I really was not going to get party political on this day of unity when we were all in so much agreement. However, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), has prompted me to do so, and who am I to turn away such an invitation? It is marvellous that he thinks the Bill is such a good idea and that he is fully supportive of it. I say gently to him that his party had 14 years in which to support Bills like this and the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill that we debated earlier. It was quite interesting to hear him try to defend the previous Government’s record at DEFRA—we all know that every single river, lake and sea was filled with sewage. I am more than happy to discuss the record of the previous Government.

I will return to my tone of unity. I thank everyone who contributed to getting the Bill to Third Reading and everyone who was involved in Committee. I have been briefed on how much support the Bill was shown in Committee, so I thank all Members from across the House for their work in that.

I thank the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for mentioning his membership of the NFU food and farming fellowship and the support of the NFU. I completely agree with him on the difference that capturing dogs’ DNA will make to enforcement. It is important that that is adopted and developed. I am tempted back into getting political again: I agree with my hon. Friend that rural crime was neglected for 14 years under the previous Government, but we are starting to take it more seriously.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) for engaging frequently with the NFU and representing its views, as well as those of farmers across her constituency. I agree with her that it is important that the Bill covers paths and roads as well. I will not get involved in the debate on which is the most beautiful constituency. How could I, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you and I know that Yorkshire is God’s own country? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for talking about responsible access to the countryside. When we enjoying the beauty of nature, it is crucial that we all obey the countryside code. I hope that all Members promote the code across their constituencies.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the bagging and binning of dog poo. That reminds me of when I attended the Filey folk festival and one of the most amusing songs I have heard for a long time, which was about the dog poo tree. The song was dedicated to all those people who go on a walk, collect their dog’s poo in a dog poo bag, and then hang the bag on the dog poo tree at the end of the walk. It reminds us all to not just bag it, but take it away with us.

[Mike Reader]

On that point, I went to the Hardingstone village fair this weekend—I had a pop-up surgery. I want to thank the constituent who came to tell me about the dog poo epidemic in Hardingstone. She asked, “What’s the Government going to do to help?” I confirmed that we will make sure that councils have the power to address this issue, and that I will raise it with West Northamptonshire council to make sure that it takes action. It is clearly impacting residents in the village of Hardingstone.

[Emma Hardy]

I completely agree that it is incredibly unpleasant. As always, it is only a minority of people who fail to take away their dog’s poo.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for the tip on visiting the beautiful print art in Glasgow. I hope that his father-in-law is impressed by his support for this Bill, if not by his ability as a farmer. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his 23rd wedding anniversary on 12 July.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) talked about the psychological boost that we get when we are near nature. He is completely right. It is such a positive feeling to be out in the wild. I always talk to my local Yorkshire wildlife group about the importance of “tangle”; where some people see mess, others see biodiversity and nature. We get the most nature where there is a tangle of different plants growing; we get very little on a mowed lawn. We get nature where we see weeds, different habitats, and different areas for species to grow and develop. I am convinced that this is a reason not to do as much gardening; we are then supporting biodiversity and the need for tangle. Members have also mentioned the importance of planting more forest and talked about how we can raise the amount of biodiversity on our new estates, all of which I completely agree with.

[Sarah Russell]

The Minister mentions forests. I want to congratulate Trees for Congleton, which has just planted its 30,000th tree in Congleton. It set out a few years ago to plant one tree for every citizen in the town, and it has achieved that. I think that is quite remarkable.

[Emma Hardy]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Trees for Congleton. Thirty thousand trees is an incredible achievement, and let us hope it keeps going.

The number of livestock kept in the UK has nearly doubled since the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 was passed, and there has been a large increase in dog ownership. The National Sheep Association’s 2025 survey indicates that 96% of respondents have experienced between one and 10 incidents of sheep worrying in the last 12 months. That highlights the urgent need to modernise the legislation in order to address this issue. On average, respondents reported four sheep deaths per year due to sheep worrying by dogs—an increase on previous years—and one respondent reported 44 sheep killed in a single attack. These figures do not account for miscarriages of lambs, or for the other secondary impacts of livestock worrying.

The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can have devastating outcomes and result in injury or death, which can have a detrimental impact on farmers. Livestock worrying can also have wider implications, such as lambs being aborted and flocks of birds being smothered. That demonstrates how harmful such incidents can be. It is clear that we need stronger measures to attack livestock worrying and the devastating effects on farmers and livestock, and this Bill will deliver these measures.

The Government recognise the distress that livestock worrying can cause animals and their keepers. All reported crime must be taken seriously, investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts, so that perpetrators receive the appropriate penalties. This Bill amends the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which underpins livestock worrying offences and enforcement, and I will summarise the three main areas that the Bill will address before going into more detail on the measures.

The Bill will primarily focus on three areas. It will modernise the definitions and scope of the livestock worrying offence by extending the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, and it will expand the species scope to include camelids, which are commonly found. It will strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs, and the collection of evidence, to improve enforcement, and as a deterrent, it will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine. Those three key areas will strengthen the legislation and deterrence around livestock worrying and attacks on livestock.

The Bill will broaden the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths. Dogs and dog walkers are commonly found walking on roads and paths, and this new measure will help to protect livestock when they are being moved—for instance, cows going into a milking parlour, or sheep being moved across the fields. That is an important new protection.

The Bill will extend the species protected by the Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. The British Alpaca Society estimates that there might be as many as 45,000 alpacas owned by members in England, and a further 20,000 owned by non-members.

The Bill will also amend the wording of the offence of livestock worrying so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. “Attacking” is part of what is more widely described as “worrying” in the 1953 Act. However, the term “worrying” can dismiss the severity of some offences. Reframing the Act so that “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock.

The new police powers will be a huge help to the police. The primary focus of the Bill is to strengthen those powers to enable the police to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively. They include extending powers of seizure, modifying entry powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Furthermore, in a survey carried out by the National Sheep Association in 2025, 98% of respondents agreed that there was an urgent need for additional police powers—it is generally unheard of to get 98% of people to agree on something.

The police can currently only seize a dog found or suspected to have worried livestock for the purpose of identifying the owner. The police have limited powers at their disposal to address reoffending when the same dog is found attacking livestock repeatedly, or the same owner has several dogs that worry livestock. Under this Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again, they have the power to seize and detain the dog. The dog can be detained until an investigation has been carried out or, if proceedings are brought for an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn. We hope this power will address the issue of reoffending and dog owners who disregard the law, and will help to address the most serious instances of livestock worrying.

The Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and impressions from a dog or livestock where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that sample or impression might provide evidence of an offence. The sample or impression could then be used as evidence to support a prosecution. Samples may be retained until either the police investigation into a potential offence has finished or court proceedings have finished or been withdrawn.

Finally, the Bill will extend the powers of entry. Under current legislation, the police can enter a premises only for the purpose of identifying the dog owner. The reasons for extending the power of entry in relation to this offence is to ensure that the police can collect the necessary evidence to prosecute these crimes. The Bill will extend police powers to allow the police to enter and search a premises, with a warrant, to seize and take samples from a dog if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. The expanded powers of entry will allow the police to seize items that may be evidence of an offence—for example, a dog collar, or a towel with blood on it.

These powers are important for improving the conviction rate and reducing the prevalence of reoffending, so that we protect our respected farmers from the horrific consequence of livestock worrying. In the light of our improvements to enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying more effectively, we hope that livestock owners or bystanders will feel encouraged to report more incidents, and will know that the reports will be taken seriously.

The Bill will also increase penalties. The penalty is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. The courts will determine an appropriate fine amount, in line with sentencing guidelines, that takes into account the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The courts can already impose a compensation order on an offender, requiring them to make financial reparation to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from an offence. Compensation may be ordered for such an amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to any evidence, including any representations made by the offender or prosecutor. There is no limit on the value of a single compensation order handed down to an offender, and the Bill will not change that.

A survey carried out by the National Farmers Union in 2025 found that in England, the midlands was the worst-hit region by cost, with dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £425,000. It was followed by the south-east, where the cost is an estimated £225,000. Farm animals in the south-east of England worth an estimated £139,000 were severely injured or killed in dog attacks in 2024. That is up 23% on the previous year. Furthermore, the National Sheep Association found that more than half of all respondents felt that increased fines, punishment and seizure powers would reduce sheep worrying incidents.

Of course, many responsible dog walkers enjoy the countryside without incident. Dog owners have a responsibility to ensure that their dogs are kept safe and under control. The countryside code highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock. It says that visitors should always check local signs, as there are locations where they must keep their dog on a lead for part or all of the year. We recognise that there is a careful balance to be struck between protecting the wider public and their livestock from dog attacks, the freedom that people enjoy when they are walking their dogs, and, of course, the welfare of those dogs, including their freedom to exhibit normal behaviours.

The new police powers that the Bill will introduce will ensure an effective response to reported cases. They are vital measures that will help improve enforcement and protect the livelihoods of our valuable farming communities. Countryside access came up. The Bill would cover a scenario in which the person in charge of the dog caused it to attack livestock that had strayed on to a road or path. The 1953 Act protects livestock that may have strayed from one field to another if it is agricultural land as defined in the Act, subject to certain exemptions and offences.

The countryside code encourages people to check local signs and leave gates as they find them. The public right of way guidance highlights the responsibility of landowners regarding waymarking and signs, including the responsibility to use signs to warn people of dangers that are not obvious. The welfare of livestock is the responsibility of the owner, and they must take necessary measures to protect their livestock. Owners of livestock should of course take reasonable care to see that their livestock do not stray. There is a common law duty on anyone who keeps animals in a field next to a road to take reasonable care to prevent their escape, in order to avoid damage. This private Member’s Bill focuses on delivering the greatest impact by improving the police’s powers to investigate and support convictions.

Let me say, in answer to a question asked, that it will not be an offence to fail to report an incident. We would always encourage dog walkers to be responsible in such circumstances by bringing an incident to the attention of the livestock owner and the police, so that the owner can ensure that the injured livestock can receive the care or treatment they need. That is important for welfare reasons. It would be difficult to enforce a legal reporting requirement.

On other species being protected, sheep are specifically protected from dogs at large because they are most susceptible to distress in the presence of dogs, and are prone to abort their young when distressed. Primary legislation could be considered in future to add other species if necessary. That point was raised by one of my hon. Friends. The countryside code highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock, and we would encourage this practice to ensure that dogs and walkers are kept safe.

It is important to note that the Bill will not amend section 1(2A) of the 1953 Act, which sets out an exemption to section 1(2)(c) for guide dogs. Owners of a guide dog will remain exempt from criminal liability if their guide dog is at large in a field or enclosure where there are sheep. However, the offence of chasing or attacking livestock applies to guide dogs, and the owner of the guide dog would be committing an offence if the dog chased or attacked livestock. Ultimately, it remains for the courts to decide what can be considered a guide dog.

I recognise the strong public support for animal welfare in this country, as reflected in the volume of correspondence received by my Department and the sustained engagement from stakeholders. Key stakeholders, including the livestock and farming sector, the animal welfare sector, the police and the veterinary sector, have been engaged in respect of these measures.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for being late; I had hoped to be here earlier.

The Minister talked about the importance of animal welfare to people up and down the country, not least in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Will she give us a flavour of when the Government will publish our animal welfare strategy?

[Emma Hardy]

I hate to give my hon. Friend the parliamentary answer “in due course”, but he will have to forgive me.

As illustrated by the two Bills we have taken through the House this morning and the actions we have taken in our first year, we are very committed to animal welfare, which is of huge importance to the country. As we heard in the previous debate, we are a nation of animal lovers. We will not revisit the names of all our pets, but we genuinely have a kind and caring nature. One of my favourite events in Parliament is when we have the cats and dogs of Westminster competitions, which are more fiercely fought than some by-elections.

The depth of concern about this issue has been evident in today’s debate. The Government are fully committed to supporting this important Bill as it progresses through the other place. This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans to improve animal welfare in a generation. The Department has initiated a series of meetings with key animal welfare stakeholders as part of the development of an overarching approach to animal welfare, demonstrating our commitment to improving animal welfare across the board, and the Prime Minister has committed to publish an animal welfare strategy later this year—or “in due course”.

I thank all Members across the House for their support, engagement and constructive comments. Once again, I am also grateful for the support from farmers, welfare stakeholders, police and others who welcome the Bill. This Bill will have a lasting impact for those affected by livestock worrying, and I am delighted to support it. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and look forward to seeing the Bill on the statute book.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I call Aphra Brandreth to wind up the debate.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Emma Hardy Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on championing this Bill and guiding its passage through the House. I have welcomed the expertise he has lent to this debate, as well as his information and the way in which he used it in Committee. I was really fascinated to learn about the “Cut the Crop” campaign, and I am keen to hear a bit more about how we can support that.

I thank all Members who have contributed to constructive and positive debates during each of the Bill’s stages. I have to say that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) must be delighted that he did not pursue his career on the forecourt. He mentioned work of the Animal Welfare Society and his passionate membership of it. He also reminded us all of the importance of doorstep dogs and—one of my favourites—dogs at polling stations, which always seem to appear whenever the election day is. I thank him for his support and join him in supporting Four Paws, Battersea and the Countryside Alliance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) mentioned dog-on-dog offences. Those are offences under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and we are working with the Crown Prosecution Service to update its guidance to make that clear. We are also working with stakeholders to encourage responsible dog ownership and reduce dog attacks. As my hon. Friend quite rightly pointed out, this is about a minority of dog owners, but it is extremely distressing for anybody involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned stray dogs and the difficulty they have in gaining trust, which is so true, as well as the damage that cruelty to animals can do throughout a pet’s life. He also mentioned the importance of social media and how we can ensure that all of us in this House are sending the right message that we think the practice of mutilating animals is unacceptable.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for his support and for raising the importance of ending smuggling. Smuggling is the wrong thing to do for the welfare of animals and for our biosecurity, and that is a really important point. He also raised how we need to bring down the demand for mutilated dogs, and I think we can do more across the whole House on that issue. Of course, I agree with him that ferrets are a northern icon.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his support. He is right that Santa’s sleigh has a separate licensing system, so there is no difficulty in reindeers passing between any borders on the night of 24 December. I recognise his support for the welfare of animals, and we must do better. I will take away his important concerns about social media advertising.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) in thanking—I hope I get all of them—Cats Protection Portsmouth, Portsmouth Lost, Found and Rehomed, Penny’s Place, Phoenix Rehoming, and Bernice Buckingham at Portsmouth Tortoise Rescue for all the work they do. [Interruption.] I was so close. I thank them for all the work they do across her constituency.

As noted by the hon. Member for Winchester, it is nice to have the whole House united on a matter of animal welfare—what a nice way to end the week? The nation is also united on animal welfare. Few topics have as much engagement and support from constituents, as evidenced by the frequent correspondence I receive in Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice and that I am sure all of us across the House receive. The public’s passion for pets is very much reflected in the statistics. According to the PDSA, pet ownership has increased in recent years with over half of adults owning a pet. As the proud owner of my cats Serena, Meglatron and Lily, I welcome the Bill and am thrilled that the measures covers cats because they deserve equal protection as dogs. I pay tribute to my daughter Isabel who is here this morning and the magic way she has with animals. She has a particular talent, when we have had young kittens, in helping them grow up to be soft and gentle animals. In fact, our beloved Thomas used to go to bed with her like a small teddy to be cuddled at night-time. I would go in and see them sitting watching television together—honestly, he was more like a dog than a cat. That only goes to reinforce the point made that when animals are treated well when they are little, they grow up to be soft, gentle and loving animals.

It is only right that imported cats should have parity —I nearly said pawrity—of protection, as they do across our domestic animal welfare laws. While we are talking about the wonderful things we have across our constituencies, I want to mention Jenny’s Cat House. Jenny takes in loads of animals that are rescued and lost and found literally into her house—it has become a charity now. She does incredible work as many do across the constituency.

[Mike Reader]

As we are talking about constituency issues, a sad thing happened in Northampton a few weeks ago. There was an arson attack in Dunelm, and that spread to Pets at Home in the St James retail park. Unfortunately, that fire ripped through the vet, the dog groomers and the store. Will the Minister join me in thanking all the volunteers, vets, groomers and the fire service who put their lives at risk to save so many pets—dogs, cats and others—as that fire took hold?

[Emma Hardy]

I of course join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone involved. It is horrific to think that somebody would wish to attack a veterinary building where they know animals receive treatment and where they live. I hope that whoever has done that will be quickly and firmly brought to justice.

As the number of pet owners has increased, there is a number of people travelling with their pets. In 2024, 368,000 dogs, cats and ferrets were moved non-commercially into Great Britain. While most of those were genuine movements, the rise in non-commercial movements also accounts for the uptick in unscrupulous traders that abuse our pet travel rules to illegally smuggle puppies and kittens into the country. Due to its illicit nature, we cannot know the true number of pets illegally smuggled into Great Britain. What we do know, however, is the devastating effect it can have on the health and welfare of the animals that suffer as a result. I am delighted to reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill. These measures represent a crucial step forward in our collective efforts to tackle the pet smuggling trade.

As we set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to ending puppy smuggling, and the measures in the Bill will close loopholes in our pet travel rules that smugglers exploit. The Bill will tighten these rules by reducing the number of pets that can travel in a single non-commercial movement, and requiring the movement of a pet to be explicitly linked to that of its owner. That will fundamentally disrupt the tactics we know illegal traders employ to avoid more stringent checks and oversight. I am reassured that the Bill gives the Government the power to reduce those limits further should there be evidence that our pet travel rules continue to be abused.

As the hon. Member for Winchester rightly highlighted, the Bill also introduces powers for the Government to tackle low-welfare imports through secondary legislation. The Government must first use these regulation-making powers to introduce three impactful restrictions—restrictions raising the minimum age at which dogs and cats can be moved into Great Britain to six months; banning the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats; and banning the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated. We want fewer low-welfare operations supplying pets to the GB market and, fundamentally, we want fewer animals to suffer. I know that colleagues from across the House are keen to see these regulations make it on to the statute book as soon as possible.

This Government are committed to introducing the prohibitions in the Bill as soon as practicable. Delivering these measures through secondary legislation will allow the Government to work closely with stakeholders to understand where appropriate exemptions from the measures may be needed. These will need to be carefully considered to ensure that we do not inadvertently create any loopholes that could be abused. Of course, the enforcement of the measures will be crucial to their success. Local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency will continue to be responsible for enforcing pet travel and commercial import requirements. We will work closely with enforcement bodies to ensure that they have the right tools and guidance to enforce these measures effectively.

I welcome the Bill’s new powers to make regulations, which will provide authorities with a clear process and enforcement powers when presented with a non-compliant pet. Regulations will allow for the cost of detention to be met and, if necessary, for the animal to be rehomed. They will bolster the enforcement tools available to agencies, empowering them to take appropriate action if the new rules are not followed, while ensuring that we protect the welfare of pets that are imported illegally.

In Committee, the Government supported several amendments to the Bill, which provided drafting clarification and the necessary flexibilities for genuine owners who will impacted by the new rules due to protected characteristics or circumstances beyond their control. I was pleased to see those amendments pass, and I am confident that they will strengthen the Bill. The Government supported amendments to narrow the Bill’s power to make criminal offences. Those amendment will ensure that any criminal offences created using this power are foreseeable, having been set out in the Bill, and will receive the appropriate scrutiny from Parliament. The offences specified in the Bill have been informed by engagement with enforcement bodies to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

As touched on by the hon. Member for Winchester, the Bill received a clarification drafting change in Committee. This change made it clear that the existing definition of “pet animal” in our pet travel regulations is not affected by the Bill. Ultimately, it ensures that the status quo is maintained, and the effective operation of our pet travel regime.

The Bill was also amended to allow an appropriate authority to grant an exemption from the tighter non-commercial pet travel rules, as amended in the Bill, in exceptional or compelling circumstances. I reassure hon. Members that this mechanism will be tightly controlled. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill will not result in loopholes that could be exploited by smugglers. The mechanism will give the Government flexibility to deal with unanticipated events that may impact the ability of genuine pet owners to follow the more stringent pet travel rules introduced by the Bill—for example, in the case of force majeure, such as a natural disaster that ground planes or a medical emergency that prevents owners from travelling within five days of their pet.

Furthermore, the amendments will ensure that the new measures introduced by the Bill do not adversely impact protected groups, such as assistant dog users, who may wish to travel together in groups larger than five. This has been carefully considered by the Government in accordance with our public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. Importantly, the amendments do not provide blanket exemptions from the rules; instead, each case will be considered individually. The Government will work with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to ensure that there is a clear process to follow, and that exemptions are granted only in truly exceptional or compelling circumstances.

Finally, the Government also supported an amendment that removed the power to make further consequential amendments arising from the Bill’s changes to the pet travel rules and corresponding import rules. Since the Bill was introduced, we have further assessed the changes to legislation that might be necessary as a result of the Bill, and we are confident that no further amendments are required. We are keen to take no more power than is necessary. The amendments have not been considered lightly, and I am in no doubt that they improve the deliverability and ability to enforce this Bill.

Several MPs have mentioned our work to reset relations with the EU. As announced at the UK-EU leaders’ summit on 19 May 2025, the UK and EU have agreed to work towards having a common sanitary and phytosanitary area, which would make taking pets to the EU on holiday easier and cheaper. It is important that we get the right agreement for the UK, so we are not putting any arbitrary deadlines on negotiations. We will provide more information on pet passports in due course; in the meantime, owners will still need an animal health certificate for their dog, cat or ferret if they are travelling from Great Britain to an EU country. While I am unable to comment on live negotiations, I reassure hon. Members that this Government will continue to support this Bill while negotiating an SPS agreement with the EU.

As set out in the Government’s manifesto, we are committed to ending puppy smuggling and delivering a better future for animals. I am pleased to say that this Bill does just that. Its key measures deliver crucial recommendations by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and tackle multiple concerns that have been raised by stakeholders regarding loopholes in our pet travel rules. I commend the hon. Member for Winchester on taking this important Bill through the House, and I very much look forward to seeing it on the statute book.

Draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 General Committees

[The Chair]

For the avoidance of doubt and of by-elections, Members may remove their jackets.

[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 Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 June 2025.

I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 5 June in relation to the draft statutory instrument. It corrected a typographical error on page 20, in schedule 2, in the heading to the second table, “Table 1”, which should read, “Table 2”. That does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation. Copies of the correction slip have been made available to Members.

For years, the industry has called for mandatory sheep carcase classification and price reporting. The draft instrument will bring the sheep industry in line with the beef and pork sectors, where mandatory carcase classification and price reporting has been in place for many years. The instrument mandates sheep carcase classification and the price reporting of sheep carcases for larger slaughterhouses, which are those that slaughter at least 2,000 sheep a week. Smaller slaughterhouses, which slaughter at least 1,000 sheep a week, can voluntarily decide that the regulations will apply to them. The legislation will provide a process for the introduction of a system for the authorisation of automated sheep-grading methods for slaughterhouses that wish to use automated carcase classification.

We are introducing the legislation because slaughter-houses can set their own standards for preparing and presenting sheep carcases for classification and weighing. As a result, carcase weights across the sector lack consistency due to variations in the way that the carcase is prepared, trimmed and presented. That inconsistency leads to a lack of transparency across the industry, with non-comparable prices being quoted or recorded. Consequently, farmers often struggle to achieve the best payment for the quality of their sheep carcases when they sell their stock.

We want a more transparent, productive and efficient sheep market. By addressing that long-running supply chain fairness issue, we will encourage farmers to improve their productivity and ensure that they are paid a fair price based on the quality of their sheep. Producers can also then rear lambs that will better fit the market’s specifications and consumer demand.

The legislation will also introduce a consistent and robust mechanism for the evaluation of the carcases of sheep aged less than 12 months at the time of slaughter. That encapsulates the prime lamb market. The draft instrument requires the use of the EUROP grid, as it is commonly known, to assess conformation—that is, shape and the degree of fat cover. The meat industry is familiar with that carcase classification scale through the mandatory schemes for pig and beef carcases. Several abattoirs have already been using it when voluntarily classifying sheep carcases.

The new system will require operators to ensure that sheep carcases are presented in a consistent way post slaughter, at the point of weighing and classification. Regulated slaughterhouses will have to use one of two specified carcase presentations at that point. The regulated slaughterhouses will be required to report the weight of the carcase and its classification details, along with the price being paid for sheep sold, on a dead-weight basis—that is, when payment for the sheep is dependent on the classification and weight of its carcase. The carcase and pricing details must be reported to the supplier of the sheep, and to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which will process the information under contract to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as it does already for beef and pork.

The draft instrument will apply a licensing regime to classifiers and to automated classification methods. The Rural Payments Agency, which will monitor and enforce the regulations, will assess and license carcase classifiers. That means that both manual classifiers and automated classifying technology in regulated slaughterhouses will need to be licensed for sheep classification.

Provision is made for automated classification methods to be first subjected to an authorisation testing process, which must be passed before the automated equipment using that method can be put forward for licensing in regulated slaughterhouses. That will ensure that the method being used for automated classification can repeatedly and accurately classify carcases. The Rural Payments Agency will be given the powers to inspect the regulated slaughterhouses and to take enforcement action when there are breaches of the regulatory requirements.

The sheep industry, including farmers and meat processors, has been pressing us to create a mandatory carcase classification and price reporting system for sheep carcases, which the draft instrument delivers. I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Who would have thought that today there would be such unity in the House of Commons? I thank everyone for their support. The draft instrument is an essential tool in our efforts to increase the fairness of the supply chain. It establishes a much-needed scheme that will result in a more open, fair and transparent sheep market.

Question put and agreed to.

Flood Defences: Chesterfield

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) is right to highlight the mental health impacts that flooding has on communities and individuals; he was also right to say that once someone has been flooded, they are always a flood victim. He discussed the appalling, awful and tragic loss of life in his constituency, as well as similar cases that we have seen, sadly, in other parts of the country. I hope it goes without saying that I am happy to give any assistance I can in getting people around the table.

I will have a look at why the section 19 report has taken so long and how it compares with other section 19 reports around the country so that I can understand what is happening: whether the one my hon. Friend has mentioned is an anomaly or whether it is standard—if it is standard, we clearly need to do something about that. Let me take that point away.

I hope that I can express, if nothing else, the urgency I feel when it comes to dealing with flood risk. My hon. Friend, and everyone else, is right to say that climate change is real and makes flood risks more common. We know from the NAFTA 2.0 reports that one in four homes will be at risk of flooding by the mid-century. The Government are putting in a record amount of funding, but at the same time climate change is making the situation worse. The situation is urgent.

I completely understand how anxious my hon. Friend’s constituents feel when, as he described, they see rainclouds and feel nervous about what will happen. It was really helpful to be in his constituency with him and see the schemes and the streets for myself. That helped me to really picture the individual circumstances they faced, so I thank him for that invitation. I spoke to the Environment Agency ahead of this debate, and want to give you an update—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

You mean give him an update.

[Emma Hardy]

I can also give you an update, Mr Stuart, but I would like to give my hon. Friend an update, too. The EA recently completed the project to refurbish a section of the floodwall on the River Rother that was damaged during Storm Babet, and £75,000 of DEFRA flood defence funding has been allocated to the avenue for the storage reservoir, which my hon. Friend and I visited together. As he rightly said, it operated during Storm Babet, but there was still widespread flooding downstream.

That funding will allow the EA to investigate any improvements that can be made to how it operates to hopefully reduce more flood risks. The Environment Agency is working with the council to investigate the removal or raising of several bridges along the Rivers Hipper and Rother. That is at an early stage, but it will help us look at how to improve flow and reduce the risk of blockages, which is an issue that was raised previously.

In addition, the Environment Agency, Derbyshire county council and the Don Catchment Rivers Trust are exploring natural flood management opportunities for the Hipper and Spital Brook catchments—my hon. Friend knows I am a fan of natural flood management; I will come to the flood funding formula and how that can enable natural flood management. They have also secured just under £400,000 of funding towards the River Hipper flood alleviation scheme to support the development of the business case, so they are on to the development stage of the project. It includes £275,000 of local levy from the Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and £60,000 from Chesterfield borough council. The scheme will protect over 200 homes and businesses.

Pre our funding formula review, at this moment, the scheme is estimated to cost £16 million, with a funding gap of under £40 million, but that is under the current rules. However, that could change as a result of our funding rules. I will say a bit more about our funding consultation. The current approach to the flood funding formula was drawn up by the previous Government in 2011, and is outdated and not working as it should. It neglects more innovative approaches such as natural flood management. In fact, the solution the previous Government had was to set a separate fund for natural flood management rather than integrating it into how the formula works as a whole.

Our proposed change looks at full Government funding for the first £3 million of projects. That unlocks lots of natural flood management because many smaller natural flood management schemes are less than £3 million; they are struggling because they cannot get the partnership funding to close the gap. Fully funding projects up to £3 million means we can get on with the smaller schemes. Then there is a flat rate of 90% Government contribution and 10% partnership funding. If the project of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is successful with the business case, it would be looking at 90% Government funding and having to find 10% partnership funding, which is very different from the current situation.

We would also fully fund the refurbishment of existing flood assets. Understandably, people say, “Why do we need partnership funding to maintain an asset that already exists?” Our flooding formula consultation says that we would fully fund refurbishment of assets as well.

The changes make natural flood management much easier. However, that means that many projects move through to the prioritisation stage. The first stage is: does it meet the tests to go through to prioritisation? Then there is prioritisation; even though we are putting a record amount of money into flooding, there is a certain amount there to be allocated, so the consultation looks at prioritisation. What do we want to prioritise when deciding which projects go ahead and which do not? Are we looking at very basic value for money in terms of numbers of properties protected? That would have an impact on rural communities. Are we looking at prioritising natural flood management? Are we looking at prioritising areas of deprivation? What are the prioritisation criteria? That is what the consultation asks. Are we prioritising “frequently flooded” as another criterion, to put weighting towards which ones actually go through to be built?

The consultation is happening at the moment. At this moment, I cannot say whether it would make it easier or harder for my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield to get his scheme developed. But the partnership funding that has held up my hon. Friend’s scheme would be dealt with under our consultation, because 90% would be Government funding and 10% would be partnership.

We need to prioritise which ones are done first. The consultation is genuinely open in listening to people about the criteria they want to prioritise. We obviously have to be really careful when spending any Government money and need a fair and transparent system when it comes to which projects get built first and which do not.

As has been mentioned, we are investing a record amount: £4.2 billion over three years to build, maintain and repair existing flood defences. That is a 5% increase in our annual average investment compared with our existing spend, which was already a record amount. I hope that demonstrates the Government’s commitment and sense of urgency. The current funding will continue to support 1,000 flood schemes, better protecting 52,000 homes and businesses by March 2026. On top of that, a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored through essential maintenance activities.

As my hon. Friends know, we inherited flood defences in their worst state on record. The condition of key flood defences in England was at its lowest since the financial year 2009-10, with only 92% of assets at the required condition. In the current financial year, we are putting £430 million into constructing new schemes, and using a further £220 million to restore flood defences to the condition that they need to be in. That full list was published in March. Last week, we announced £7.9 billion of funding, which is the largest flooding programme in history, as part of our landmark infrastructure strategy.

We are introducing many other changes, but I can see that I am running out of time. On compulsory purchasing, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield recognises that the Environment Agency can compulsory purchase something only if it is for building a specific scheme. Sadly, he and others around the country have raised the problem of properties devaluing when they are continually at risk of flooding. I wonder whether in those particular circumstances, which I saw for myself, there is another conversation to be had about property flood resilience measures and whether more can be done to support those homes.

We have had a radical change with our flooding formula. It has made the system much simpler, so that people around the country can clearly understand that the first £3 million will be fully funded, and after that it will be 90% Government and 10% partnership funding. That is intended to equalise the system everywhere, because at the moment nobody quite understands why one scheme may have a partnership funding gap of £40 million, as in my hon. Friend’s case, and another may have no partnership funding gap at all. This formula makes the system much clearer.

I urge everybody to respond to the flooding consultation and to think about how they want Government money to be prioritised, so that we can protect as many people as possible from the devastating impact of flooding, which causes such a problem not only for the local economy but for mental health. We will continue to build and repair flood defences while delivering natural flood management and sustainable drainage systems, and we will make sure that this country is more resilient to floods.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to help restore chalk streams.

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

Chalk streams are not only a beautiful and iconic part of our precious natural landscape; they are symbols of our national heritage. The protection and restoration of our cherished chalk streams is a core ambition in our overall programme of reform to the water sector.

[Luke Murphy]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. In Hampshire, we are blessed with several rare and irreplaceable chalk streams, including the River Loddon, the River Itchen and the River Test. The Minister will be aware of the campaigns to secure greater protection for these irreplaceable habitats, including during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I pay tribute to the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Greener Basingstoke, and Natural Basingstoke for all their work. Can the Minister confirm that this Government are committed to the protection of chalk streams, and set out what further steps they will take to restore these precious habitats?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is quite right: chalk streams are a source of beauty and national pride. Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting a chalk stream restoration project with Charles Rangeley-Wilson, who is a passionate campaigner for chalk streams. Under this Labour Government, water companies will spend more than £2 billion to deliver over 1,000 actions for chalk stream restoration, and will reduce their abstraction from chalk streams by 126 million litres per day.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The River Chess in Rickmansworth is one of the chalk streams that goes through my constituency. The volunteers at the Rickmansworth Waterways Trust are keeping our canal heritage alive, despite funding for the Canal & River Trust being cut. I believe the cut is short-sighted, because these waterways tackle water shortages, boost biodiversity and protect 2,500 miles of national assets for a modest cost. Will the Minister rethink the funding cuts and back the Fund Britain’s Waterways campaign, so that local champions like David Montague and his team at Batchworth lock are not left to sink or swim on their own?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say how important volunteers are in supporting our natural environment up and down the country. He will be aware that the decision to reduce the funding for the Canal & River Trust was taken by the previous Government, and that was extended under this Government. There will be a tapering off of some of the funding, but we continue to support water projects up and down the country. As I have already mentioned, the changes that we are introducing for water companies will help to protect not only our beautiful chalk streams, but all our rivers, lakes and seas.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

3. What steps he is taking to ensure that nature-friendly farming funding schemes are accessible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

5. If he will make it his policy to redistribute fines levied against water companies since November 2023 to the water restoration fund.

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

This Labour Government have launched the largest ever crackdown against poorly behaving water companies. As part of this operation, Ofwat has hit Thames Water with a £100 million fine, which is the biggest in British history. I am delighted to confirm today that fines collected by regulators will be directly invested in projects, led by communities up and down the country, to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the Minister for her answer on the water restoration fund, but it would be good to know when it will come back into action. A Liberal Democrat freedom of information request found that Ofwat has failed to force water companies to pay any fines for sewage discharge cases since 2021, despite sewage being pumped into waterways for over 3.6 million hours last year alone. Meanwhile, water company bosses earned a collective total of £20 million in the 2023-24 financial year. The water restoration fund provided valuable funds to local communities to improve water quality and river health. When will the Government stand up to the water companies, make them pay for the damage they are inflicting on our environment, and ringfence this money for communities, so that they can protect and improve their waterways?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady, but with respect, the response was in my original answer. As I confirmed, the water restoration fund is continuing as planned. Successful projects have been notified, and money has been announced and given. As I have stated, all the money collected from water fines will be diverted into nature projects to help clean up our rivers, lakes and seas across the country—and yes, that money will be ringfenced.

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

The interim Cunliffe report on the water sector has highlighted weak, disjointed and reactive regulation by various regulators. If the commission’s final findings confirm the assessment of the regulators, can the Minister confirm that she will act swiftly and decisively to reform regulation of our water companies?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important work that the commission has been doing. I do not want to get ahead of any announcements the commission may make—it is not long to wait now, Mr Speaker; it is only a few weeks—but clearly regulation has not been working, so action is needed.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to tackle fly-tipping.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

T3.   Residents of Thornton-Cleveleys in my constituency are being warned not to eat food grown in their own gardens because a local site is being investigated after testing found high concentrations around it of a banned substance called perfluorooctanoic acid, which has proven to be carcinogenic, and there have been discharges into the protected River Wyre. This is affecting hundreds of residents in the area, and there are fears of contamination to water and locally grown food. What steps will the Minister take to address this problem under the current regulations to ensure that constituents like mine are protected?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The Government are, of course, strongly committed to ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I am aware that the Environment Agency is investigating this matter, so I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it in detail.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It was reported today that the Treasury may be planning to siphon money off from the water restoration fund for “unrelated purposes”. What assurance can the Secretary of State provide that money in the restoration fund will be used to clean up our waterways, not to cover rising Government debt interest?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do not recognise that report. The money from the restoration fund is being used now to fund projects up and down the country. As I have mentioned, the future money from fines will be ringfenced for environmental projects up and down the country as well.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Compensation has been given to Severn Trent customers in Norton and Packmoor who had suffered discoloured water supplies, and to another resident who had sewage flooding their garden. While I welcome recent investment to upgrade the pipes in Smallthorne, Burslem and Tunstall, will the Secretary of State please outline how he will hold water bosses to account, so that residents finally see real improvements?

Environment Agency: East of England

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for securing today’s debate and everyone else who has contributed to it. Listening to all the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about serious issues in his constituency, I wonder from the outset if it might be helpful to have a meeting with the EA area director to go through each of them in turn. I was told by the EA ahead of this debate that it is very happy to meet him, and me.

I welcome the mention of the increased funding that we have given the Environment Agency. We have increased the budget for environmental protection by £17 million, and the charge income has increased to £513 million for this year. Each week, I get an operational briefing on some of the major significant issues around the country, and Hoad’s wood has been mentioned. I have been told that waste removal should start this month. If that does not happen, I am more than happy to pick up that point.

More generally, on regulation, regulators and how things work, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we came into government, we commissioned the Corry review to look at all the different regulators within the environmental space and see where there is potential, where there has been overlap of responsibilities, how effectively they are working and what might need to change. Just yesterday, Sir Jon Cunliffe published his interim report on the water sector and how it works. It is really interesting; there is a whole section on how regulation works or does not work effectively in some areas, and there is a genuine call for all Members of Parliament from all parties to feed back on that interim report before the final recommendations. The right hon. Member may be interested in that chapter on regulation.

I find the people I work with at the Environment Agency to be really keen to do well and passionately committed to their jobs. The people who deal with this mess on the frontline are really committed. When the Secretary of State did the water investment tour, he visited Cambridgeshire to attend a water scarcity roundtable on 13 March. Hopefully, we will both be visiting the area again soon.

In my role as Minister, I meet Environment Agency representatives every month, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows from his time in the Department. I talk to them about things that are happening nationally, and our priorities and how they fulfil them. I also ensure that the agency is equipped to carry out its functions effectively.

Ahead of this debate, I asked for an update on what is happening on Saxon Pit. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration about the amount of time that criminal investigations take. I know that from my time in opposition as well as my time in government that these things can feel protracted, but as it is a criminal investigation, it might be helpful to have a more confidential meeting about it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my being vague.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that dealing with water pollution, such as the category 1 incident at King’s dyke, is a serious and important issue for the Government. At DEFRA, looking at how we deal with such incidents is a priority, which is why we have increased enforcement funding. I have been told that the situation at King’s dyke is progressing well, but we can have a more detailed conversation about both incidents with the area director, given that they involve criminal investigations. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to take me up on that, I would be happy to have that conversation.

The Environment Agency generally publishes its progress on different aims. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and I have spoken before about his concerns about sewage in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and I have had similar conversations. There is a lot to sort out and a lot to clean up, but I am always happy to pick it up if the hon. Member for Broxbourne does not feel that he is getting the engagement that he needs from the Environment Agency. Whenever I talk to EA representatives, they tell me that they are really keen to meet MPs, especially new MPs, and to build a relationship with them, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to take that up. If he does not feel it is forthcoming enough, I am more than happy to pick that issue up.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire will have to forgive me, because waste incinerators are not in my brief and I have only a vague knowledge of them. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that he had to recuse himself from any involvement in the decision making, which I completely respect. Once I talk to a ministerial colleague, I can give the right hon. Gentleman a more detailed briefing on waste incinerators.

We are setting clear conditions for new energy-from-waste plants; they must be efficient and support net zero and our economic growth mission before they get backing. We are keen to make DEFRA a driver of growth and to ensure that it is not seen to be holding up planning permission and consents. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying in relation to this particular incinerator, and I will get back to him in more detail. As Minister, my general feeling from speaking to Environment Agency colleagues has been positive. I know that there is frustration with processes and bureaucracy—we all know that, especially the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire from his time in government. The wheels can sometimes feel like they move quite slowly.

[Terry Jermy]

The Minister and I have talked on many occasions. I do not envy the scale of the challenge that she has, particularly in relation to pollution. She and I have talked about internal drainage boards, which is another issue that is shared across constituencies. In relation to permits and licensing, we are proud to have a growth agenda as a Government. Does the Minister recognise that focusing on encouraging the EA to improve its performance in that regard could help to unlock growth in many areas in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk and improve growth opportunities for businesses? I appreciate that there is an awful lot to do in the Department, but can that issue be given some focus as well?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, one of the things that comes up in our monthly meetings is how we can improve the issuing of permits and make it quicker. He is completely right, and I hear not just from his constituency but right across the country that there are problems with how quickly permits are issued. I completely hear and accept his point.

We are committed to working in collaboration with the Environment Agency, and with all hon. and right hon. Members, to continue to advance its performance in the east of England and across the rest of the country. We want to continue to support communities in protecting them against pollution and against the horrific example of Hoad’s wood and the other two examples that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire gave. As I say, I am happy to have a more detailed conversation about those two particular issues from his constituency.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister speaks warmly about having meetings with the Environment Agency. It is all well and good having a meeting, but I do not want to go into a talking shop. I feel like the Environment Agency uses the meetings to say, “We’ve ticked that box and we’ve met that MP; that issue is done,” but it does not action anything. We want to see real action for our constituents because they are really fed up with these issues, which take a terribly long time to solve.

[Emma Hardy]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is completely right: constituents want to action when they see pollution incidents. Of course, if he is not satisfied with the outcome and he feels that action has not been taken to the standard that he wants following the meeting, I am more than happy to pick that up. I will finish on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Flood Resilience and Coastal Erosion Consultation

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Written Statements

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

The first role of any Government is to protect their citizens. Yet the previous Conservative Government left flood defences in their worst condition on record. This is a dereliction of duty.

Economic growth is the No. 1 mission in the Government’s plan for change. Resilience and adaptation to climate change are essential foundations to this mission—better protecting all communities from the risk of flooding increases investor confidence, the viability of businesses, the resilience of critical infrastructure, innovation, and tourism. This is why we are investing a record £2.65 billion over the two years to March 2026.

We are committed to making every pound we invest count, and to ensuring that our flood resilience and coastal erosion investment policy enables new innovative approaches that respond to current challenges and prepare us for the future. Today, the Department has launched a consultation on reforming our approach to investing in flooding and coastal erosion for communities across the country.

We have a bold, strategic vision for the future. Our objectives are for the new approach to be simple, flexible, and strategic—so that we can deliver timely, data-driven interventions that build national resilience. It will have a stronger focus on investing in our existing assets and enabling a broader range of resilience interventions, including natural flood management and property flood resilience measures. It will be informed by a 10-year pipeline of project opportunities based on the Environment Agency’s new national flood risk assessment, which brings together key national and local evidence.

We want to ensure that funding for flood defences is distributed more effectively across the country—including for rural and coastal communities. We are proposing to stop using the current outdated funding formula entirely and replace it with a simple two-step process. The first step determines how much Government funding a project will get. We are proposing to fully fund the first £3 million of all projects and apply a flat rate of 90% Government contribution towards the remaining costs. This approach means that more schemes will see their funding gaps filled. It will make it simpler and faster for all risk management authorities to calculate their funding—benefiting all councils, including poorer councils that have less resource to commit to the application process.

We have also listened to stakeholders who have told us about their difficulties in securing external funding contributions for capital works to existing assets. We are therefore proposing to fully fund the refurbishment of existing flood and coastal erosion risk management projects to reduce these pressures.

The second step will be to prioritise projects for funding. We are seeking views in our consultation on a range of options, including prioritising by value for money; weightings to bolster priority outcomes, such as for deprived communities and natural flood management; and providing incentives for projects to secure additional external funding contributions.

The new approach for flood resilience investment will be launched in time for the start of our new flood investment programme in April 2026. Transitional arrangements will be put in place for existing projects in construction to ensure that all those projects are completed.

The Government are also opening a call for evidence on two wider areas. The first looks at how we can effectively find alternative sources of funding for flood and coastal erosion projects to achieve better outcomes for more stakeholders. The second explores opportunities for English devolution to support flood resilience, including how to deliver more local choice in flood risk management decisions and achieve wider benefits. It also invites views on the potential for mayors to help fund flood projects using mayoral revenue raising powers, on opportunities for improved partnership working and on the potential to devolve funding for local flood risk in the longer term.

We have recognised the challenges that our inherited approach to floods funding presents to communities across the country, including in rural, coastal and poorer council areas. This review of floods funding marks a step change in our approach to flood risk investment. Everyone with an interest in flood risk management—from local floods action groups and individuals to flood risk management authorities and private businesses—is encouraged to share their voice and help shape the future of floods funding.

[HCWS680]

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and especially the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for calling the debate and providing an opportunity for us to hear about and discuss how the planning system can best manage and mitigate flood risk. I am delighted to be here, obviously, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, but I recognise that some of the points made were about amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so apologies if I cannot speak about amendments under a different brief. I will of course make sure that any points made are heard by the relevant Minister.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for raising the issue of surface water flooding. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about internal drainage boards, and I will address that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about flooding and insurance and made important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked about flood action groups, and I want to take a moment to say thank you to all the flood action groups, wardens and volunteers in communities up and down our country for the work that they do. Helpfully, my hon. Friend addressed some of the concerns and questions around maps, so she saved a chunk of my speech, which is great, because I have not got much time to speak on that, although I will talk a little more about maps.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) said, when I arrived, “You will see the same faces as we do in all these debates.” But that is good, because it shows what a tireless champion he is, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), in every flooding debate. It would not be the same without them—that is all I can say—so I thank them very much for coming here and, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, raising their concerns.

I met the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk back in April to discuss his proposals, and it was a really informative and helpful discussion. He raises important topics, which I have taken incredibly seriously and gone away and had a look at, because as he rightly said, climate change is bringing more extreme rainfall and rising sea levels, and it is a priority for this Government to protect communities from the increased risk of flooding.

I am not sure where the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), got the idea that we were cutting funding for flooding. That is not the case. We have invested a record £2.65 billion over two years—2024-25 and 2025-26—for the construction of new flood schemes and the repair and maintenance of existing ones.

[Tim Farron]

I am asking the question because the Government and Chancellor have said that there is no commitment beyond the end of this financial year. We do not know whether the Government are cutting or increasing spending, and we want to know. Many flood-hit communities are desperate to hear what the Chancellor’s plans are beyond this financial year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Okay, I take the point. We have just invested a record amount over two years; it is the greatest amount that has ever been invested in flood defences. Of course, any future announcements are part of the spending review. The hon. Member has been in this place a very long time and understands that very well, but I hope that he can see that there are deeds, not words, in the fact that we have invested that record amount.

I pay tribute to the flood partnership of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. I think that is a great example of the vital role that partnerships have in bringing together all parties with an interest in flood resilience. I think it is a really good model for other people to take away.

The comments from Opposition Members about the personal experience of flooding, the impact on mental health and the impact on communities were very well made.

It was good again to hear about natural flood management and some of the work that we are doing to alleviate flooding. That is a positive way of doing it for nature as well as for flood alleviation.

I would like to talk a little bit about planning and flood risk, although I am of course mindful that I am speaking on a slightly different brief from my own. We are committed to building the homes that the country needs, while maintaining the highest levels of flood protection. The national planning policy framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Where development is necessary and where no suitable sites are available in areas with a lower risk of flooding, local planning authorities and developers should ensure that development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant. Development must also be safe for its lifetime—a point made by hon. Members—should not increase flood risk overall and should provide wider sustainability benefits.

The Government, through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, published the revised NPPF in December 2024. That clarified how the sequential test should be applied to development in areas of flood risk and encouraged the use of sustainable drainage systems in new developments. The Government are considering whether further changes are necessary to manage flood risk when we consult on planning reform, including national policy relating to decision making, later this year. I will ensure that all the contributions regarding amendments are heard by Ministers in the relevant Department.

We are strongly committed to requiring standardised SuDS in new developments. These should be designed to cope with changing climatic conditions, as well as delivering wider water infrastructure benefits, reducing run-off, and helping to improve water quality, amenity and biodiversity. It is important to ensure appropriate adoption and maintenance arrangements are in place—that was another point that was raised.

We believe that those outcomes can be achieved through either improving the current planning-led approach using powers now available or commencing schedule 3 to the Water and Flood Management Act 2010. A final decision on the way forward will be made in the coming months. As mentioned, there have been changes to the national planning policy framework to support increasing SuDS. The NPPF now requires all developments to use SuDS where they could have a drainage impact. These systems should be appropriate to the nature and scale of the proposed developments.

I will briefly mention the flood maps. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk and I have discussed some of the mapping, which is called NaFRA2. Hon. Members can put in their postcode, and it will show their flood risk now and up to the mid-century for streets and areas. The information has been collected by the Environment Agency from around the country. It is really impressive. It is the first time that we can see surface water risk; before, flood maps showed only coastal water or river flooding. They are important maps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury mentioned, they need to be used by developers and local authorities. They are free and available for anybody who wants to see where there is risk and where there are concerns.

Internal drainage board funding is an important issue that was mentioned by a few hon. Members. We recognise the essential work of the IDBs in supporting greater resilience for farmers and rural communities, so I was pleased to announce an additional £16 million boost to the IDB drainage fund in March this year, bringing the total funding that we have announced since being in government to £91 million from the previously allocated £75 million. That was only in March this year, so they have just had that extra £16 million.

That important investment will allow IDBs to modernise and upgrade assets and waterways to ensure they are fit for the future. When I was in opposition I went to see some of the pumping stations myself, so I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) that some of them are in desperate need of upgrading. IDBs can apply for that £91 million to ensure they can get the needed upgrades.

We are working with MHCLG, the IDB sector and local authorities on a new research project. The project is looking to review IDB costs and funding, including, importantly, whether any changes are needed to the IDB funding model. I hear the point that some hon. Members made about how it feels unfair that some communities face increased council tax because of this issue. The review is expected to start this summer, and will last around a year. We will consider the findings carefully.

Through our plan for change, the Government will deliver a decade of national renewal and economic growth. We will maintain the highest levels of flood protection while taking decisive action to fix our broken planning system and deliver 1.5 million homes. I thank everyone for their contributions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. Whether he is taking steps to limit increases to water bills.

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

I add my voice to all those paying tribute to the greatest generation as we all remember VE Day. I know that many of us will be travelling back to our constituencies to join in celebrations up and down the country.

It is no wonder that the public are angry about paying the price for Conservative failure. By allowing water infrastructure to decay on their watch, the previous Conservative Government not only failed to ensure proper regulation of the industry but drove up costs of essential repairs, resulting in increased bills for customers. While I cannot undo the damage of the past, I can ensure that it never happens again. That is why funding for vital infrastructure has been ringfenced by this Government so that it can never be diverted for bonuses or dividends.

[Rachel Blake]

Roberto, one of my constituents, has seen his water bill go up by nearly 45% in the last two years, and other constituents have contacted me to say that their bills have nearly doubled in that time. I am pleased by what the Minister said about holding the previous Government to account for their failure to invest in infrastructure. What more can the Government do to hold Thames Water to account for its failure to invest in infrastructure, its poor service and these rip-off charges for consumers?

[Emma Hardy]

Roberto is right to feel angry about his bill increase, the past performance of water companies and the toothless regulation under the previous Government. We have already taken action to deliver our manifesto promise to hold water companies to account, ban unfair bonuses and introduce criminal liability with up to two years in prison. We have also created the water delivery taskforce to ensure that all water companies, including Thames Water, deliver on their promised infrastructure improvements. The Government will always support those struggling with their water bills. Indeed, this Labour Government and water companies are more than doubling the social tariff support over the next five years.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

What assessment has the Minister made on the cost of water bills from increases to regulation 31 laboratory testing capacity? I wrote to her in December about that and she replied in January. I am thankful for her answer, although it was slightly on the complacent side because she said that regulation 31 does not cause a problem to water quality just now. That is true, but the industry is burning down its assets to chemicals and equipment that have been regulation 31-tested, so a problem is coming. What assessment has the Minister made of when the solution will be delivered, and what effect will that have on water bills?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Everything relating to regulation of water is supported and looked at through the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which carries out an assessment to make sure we have the best water quality in the whole country. If he requires any further detail, he is welcome to write to me again and I will make sure I find it.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

5. What plans he has for future fishing quotas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

7. What steps he has taken to help protect communities vulnerable to flooding.

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

After 14 years, the Conservatives left our flood defences in the worst condition on record. We are investing a record £2.65 billion in a thousand projects to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Following the recent storm season, serious flooding damaged the foundations of Radyr cricket club and exposed electrical cables, which forced the club to close and cancel practice until the site was made safe. The club is also situated next to important electricity infrastructure, which means up to 930 customers could be put at risk of disruption. I have been working with Councillor Helen Lloyd Jones to try and find a way forward between National Grid and Natural Resources Wales to establish who will take responsibility for securing the river bank and the electricity infrastructure. Unfortunately, we are at an impasse, and my constituents continue to be vulnerable to further flooding. Will the Minister meet me to establish what the UK Government can do to try and help break that impasse before the next storm season hits?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure they have got a meeting already.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and I am sorry to hear about the issues his constituents are facing with flooding—I know at first hand how disruptive and awful flooding can be. As I am sure he knows, flooding is a devolved matter in Wales, but I would of course be happy to work with him and to facilitate the meeting that he requested.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Next month, a planning application for a biodigester near Haverhill and Withersfield in West Suffolk will be decided. It is the wrong location for many reasons, not least the risk of flooding as the proposed site is on flood risk zone 3 land. What are the Government doing to prevent development on land susceptible to flooding?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course, the national planning policy framework is clear that where development in areas at risk of flooding is necessary, local planning authorities and developers should ensure that the development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, safe for the development’s lifetime and, importantly, will not increase flood risk elsewhere. We are also looking at other measures, such as sustainable urban drainage systems, to be included in planning as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

On the 80th anniversary of VE Day, I thank those who fought for our and Europe’s freedom and, indeed, those who worked our land and kept our nation fed.

Our peatlands store 26 times more carbon than forests. They improve water quality and protect communities up and down the UK from flooding. The Nature Minister rightly called peatlands our “country’s Amazon rainforest” and launched a consultation to protect them. She is right, because once they have been destroyed, they can never be replaced. At the very same time, the Energy Secretary plans to rip up 2,000 hectares of protected peatland on historic land in West Yorkshire for a vast wind farm development, opening up communities to flooding and destroying the peatlands that Labour says it wants to protect. How can the Government claim to be protecting our irreplaceable peatlands when the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is actively considering destroying one of our most environmentally important landscapes in the country?

[Emma Hardy]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s ability to weave a question for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero into a question on flooding. He will have heard from the Nature Minister how important peatlands are and how essential they are for this country and heard our commitment to protecting them.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

8. What steps he is taking to help prevent foot and mouth disease entering Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

11. If he will publish updated climate resilience plans.

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

The Government are committed to strengthening the nation’s resilience to climate change. We are developing stronger climate adaptation objectives and improving the framework for action.

[Tom Gordon]

With the effects of climate change already being felt, the Institution of Civil Engineers and others have urged the Government to prioritise infrastructure resilience. Following the Court ruling on the third national adaptation programme, the Government pledged to strengthen the approach, but the Climate Change Committee called this “ineffective”. When will the Department publish its updated plans, and how will it strengthen them?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Of course, we welcome the Climate Change Committee’s assessment. The Government recognise the need to go further and faster to prepare for the impacts of a warmer world. For example, we are already taking active steps to include climate adaptation in our flood programme. For the first time, the Environment Agency’s flood risk modelling integrates potential impacts of climate change on flood and coastal erosion risk. The investment of £2.65 billion into maintaining flood defences will help to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to tackle fly-tipping.