Flood Recovery Framework

Debate between Emma Hardy and Rachael Maskell

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

You are always welcome.

[Emma Hardy]

Thank you very much. I would really like to—it would be great to go and see that.

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on the importance of food security. It is good to see the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) in a debate that is not a defence debate. There was an amusing Twitter account on politicians pointing at potholes that I used to look through and giggle at; it is nearly as good as the Twitter account on angry people in local newspapers, which I highly recommend.

The effects of flooding are profound and lasting. When we talk about property or farming flooding, we must bear that in mind. I highlight that the people least able to afford it are the people who are often the most badly impacted, because they are the ones who do not have insurance. I understand that the framework is under review and the Government expect to complete it, but can the Minister tell us if they are consulting stakeholders? The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management was not aware that the review was happening, nor was the National Farmers Union.

As has been mentioned, the lead local flood authorities, the county or unitary level councils, must have 50 or more properties affected by internal flooding to qualify for emergency funding, but that was not always the case. I have two written parliamentary questions waiting for answers on this: when was the current threshold increased from 25 properties, and what assessment was made at the time to make it 50 properties? It always seems slightly odd when people come up with these rounded numbers and say, “It is 50 properties.” Why is 50 the magic number? Why is it not 48 or 53? Why have we chosen an arbitrary number and said that it must be 50 properties?

As the Minister will understand, flooding is the result of natural features in the landscape, not local authority boundaries. Any threshold will therefore exclude councils where areas of flooded homes are split across council boundaries. The threshold of 50 can mean that if two councils are impacted and there are 49 properties in each council boundary, they do not meet the criteria because they do not have 50 properties in one council boundary. They are arbitrary numbers. I return to my written parliamentary question and ask again: why was the threshold increased? Hopefully something a little more sensible will come out of the review.

As the MP for and a resident of west Hull and Hessle, I know only too well the scale and impact of flooding on thousands of properties. For some councils, the scale of flooding is a challenge; they must deal with grant applications from hundreds of property owners. The Government’s cut-off date for grant payments is mid-2025, and councils are concerned about the capacity of the industry to install property resilience measures in the funding window and, importantly, the availability of qualified surveyors. A CIWEM survey found that only a third of risk management authorities have a full complement of staff to deliver surface water management, and three quarters of RMAs are struggling to recruit new staff. Greater flexibility on the deadline for claims would be helpful to avoid the risk that councils have to step in and fund the costs of householders who could not claim within a specified period.

As has been mentioned in the debate, I will mention the impact of that on affected farmers. The NFU informs me that its members have struggled to get any information on the flood recovery framework schemes and eligible areas before they closed for applications. It said that a significant number of farmers have missed out on the deadline and have been turned away by their respective councils, which are either not aware of the scheme or believe that farmers can access only the farming recovery fund. Another thing that came up in the debate was understanding which scheme applies to whom and who needs to apply for them.

I will also mention bureaucracy. The application process is littered with difficulty. I have left out some parts for the sake of brevity, but to be successful a homeowner must apply to their council to check that they are eligible, if they know that the council has the funds to begin with; decide whether they want to undertake flood recoverability or flood resilience measures; pay for a pre-installation survey, the cost of which can be claimed back, but which must be paid for up front; and obtain three quotes for the proposed work—the grant will cover only the cost of the cheapest quote. Once the quote is approved by the council, the property owner must sign a memorandum of understanding setting out the responsibilities of both the homeowner and the council, get the work done in line with the specific conditions of the scheme—again, paying up front—and get a post-completion survey done and submitted to the council, at which point the council will go through the survey. Only if all the criteria are met will funds up to the value of £5,000 be transferred to the homeowner. The whole process takes about 18 months, with no guarantee for the homeowner that the council will release the funds. That is difficult both for the local authorities to administer and for households to access. Will the Minister therefore look at streamlining and simplifying the process?

I am aware that I am running out of time, but I am always keen to discuss flooding and I hope for more debates on the subject. I want to quickly mention that while we need a more effective and equitable flood recovery framework, what we actually need is fewer properties flooded in the first place. The number of properties to be better protected from flooding by 2027 has been cut by 40% and 500 of the 2,000 new flood defence projects have been abandoned, according to the recent National Audit Office report. That means that 136,000 fewer homes will be protected from the risk of flooding.

I have asked parliamentary questions about where the abandoned flood defence projects are and have yet to receive a clear answer. I have been told that they are not abandoned and that some have just been deferred. I have therefore gone back to the Department asking how many projects, if not abandoned, have been deferred and how long the deferral process will be. To say that the answer has been evasive would be kind. We want to know how many of the flood projects promised by Government are on track to be delivered and where are the ones that are not. Residents have a right to know. The Government seem to be hiding behind language at the moment. That is not fair and it is not transparent.

The Government have committed more than £5 billion for new flood and coastal defences by 2027, but they are failing in their delivery while also failing to maintain the defences we have. Labour has a plan, not only to ensure that budgets committed to flood defences are used to the maximum effect, but to bring together all those involved in flood prevention and resilience to ensure that everyone works together to protect our communities, farmers and businesses now and for the future. Labour will establish a flood resilience taskforce that co-ordinates flooding preparation between central Government, local authorities, local communities and emergency services. It will ensure that vulnerable areas are identified and protected, and provide accountability for the progress of the projects. It will be chaired by a DEFRA Minister and bring together senior civil servants, Ministers from across Government—including a new Minister for resilience, who would sit in the Cabinet Office—regional flood and coastal committees and other frontline agencies, including the Environment Agency and fire and rescue services. It will work with the Environment Agency to ensure that its formula to protect communities considers potential damages to rural communities and farmland when identifying areas to protect.

DEFRA appears to have given up. Its flagship flood defence scheme is slipping further and further behind, and it has lowered its targets for maintaining flood defences. That is symptomatic of a Government who are out of ideas and know that time is up. Labour has a plan and the energy and commitment to make the changes this country needs to meet the challenges of increased flood risk in the face of a changing climate.

School Uniform Costs

Debate between Emma Hardy and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Westminster Hall

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered school uniform costs.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, although it feels a little like we are in the graveyard shift at the end of a very long Parliament. As I said to the Minister just before the debate, it is a genuine pleasure to talk to him about education once more. I started this parliamentary Session talking about education, so to finish it this way feels complete. I want to focus on the cost of school uniforms, and I will make recommendations that I hope schools and the Minister will follow.

After nine years of cuts, benefit cuts and stagnating wages, an increasing number of parents are unable to meet the basic cost of living, and the knock-on effect of that reality is a rise in child poverty. Currently, 8.3 million working-age adults and 4.6 million children are living in poverty. The numbers continue to rise, and forecasts predict that they are set to exceed the record levels of the early 1990s, which should concern us all deeply.

Recent research has brought to light many of the negative effects that growing up in poverty has on children. Some are stark and brutal. In the most deprived areas of our country, girls can expect to live 20 fewer years of their lives in good health, compared with those in the least-deprived areas. For boys, it is 19 fewer years. Both genders are four times more likely to develop mental health problems by the age of 11.

The indignities and suffering brought about by poverty are often less obvious. Every September, we see children on their way to start the new school year looking very smart in their uniforms, and our thoughts might turn to our own, or perhaps our children’s, first day. I was a teacher, and I remember the pleasure of having my classroom windows overlook the children starting school and lining up with their brand-new book bags, which were nearly as big as them, as they stood outside, waiting to meet their new teacher.

I now see children in uniforms through a different set of eyes. I was deeply affected by the testimony of a group of mothers at an evidence session of the Select Committee on Education. They told us of the demands placed on them by the increasing cost of school uniforms. Uniform dress codes now rarely consist of a simple badged sweatshirt and dark trousers or a skirt; they now include shirts, ties, blazers, and PE kits, indoor and out, all branded and often available through only a single supplier. I was devasted by the parents’ description of skipping meals to try to meet the ever-increasing costs.

Tragically, those accounts do not represent rare and isolated circumstances. Research from the Children’s Society shows that nearly one in six families said that school uniforms were to blame for their having to cut back on food and other basic essentials. Its report, “The Wrong Blazer 2018: Time for action on school uniform costs”, revealed that families have to find an average of £340 per year for each child at secondary school—an increase of 7% since 2015. Parents of primary school children spent an average of £255—an increase of 2%.

Parentkind’s latest annual survey of parents confirms that upward pressure: 76% of parents reported that the cost of sending children to school is increasing, and more than half are worried about meeting that cost. The high cost of uniforms is in some cases maintained by school policies that insist that parents buy clothing from specialist shops, rather than giving them the choice of buying items at cheaper stores, such as supermarkets or high street chains. When parents had to buy two or more school uniform items from a specific supplier, spending was found to be an average of £71 per year higher for secondary school children and £77 higher per year for primary school children. Some schools demand that seemingly generic items, such as a pair of black trousers, a PE top or shorts, must carry the school badge or logo, which also locks parents into specific retailers.

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

My hon. Friend is making a very important speech. This matter was brought to my attention by my constituents when a school changed its uniform policy to have badged trousers, skirts, blazers and other items of clothing. Does she agree that schools can take matters into their own hands not only by having generic main items of clothing, but by using uniform exchanges, which not only help families that cannot afford school uniforms, but are good for the environment?

[Emma Hardy]

I completely agree. I will go on to talk about uniform exchanges and the impact on the environment. The House of Commons did some social media outreach in advance of this debate. Someone from Birmingham said: “My niece is from a disadvantaged school background and had to completely replace her school uniform within six months of starting a new secondary school.” Someone else wrote: “My dad needs to buy me a PE kit, which is around £80 for everything I need. I can’t do PE, and get detention every time I go to PE. I feel embarrassed going to PE knowing everyone will make fun of me not being able to afford the extreme costs.” There are many other examples.