Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour and good friend. Yes, my Bill absolutely does address that issue; I will take his steer and get to the guts of it. He is absolutely right; IDBs are crucial in our part of the world. When I first looked into this issue, I thought, “How come Norfolk is top of the league table for flooding?” I soon discovered—even more shockingly—that we are not; I think we are county No. 6 or 7 out of 10, which is why many hon. Members from other counties are here.

The problem is fourfold, and there are four provisions in my draft Bill—I am keen to use this debate as an opportunity to polish it. First, we need a much clearer and sharper set of responsibilities. At the top, the Environment Agency obviously has overall responsibility for flooding in the country, but this is a local problem, so we have to properly empower the strategic flood authorities locally and re-empower the IDBs. At the moment, many of them find that in dealing with flooding they come up against all sorts of environmental green tape produced by the very agencies that are there to stop flooding—as though the Environment Agency is more interested in filling our ditches and drains with mud and wild flowers than encouraging them to drain the water. People feel frustrated by well-intended green bureaucracy that is getting in the way of local solutions, so responsibilities should be put back locally.

Secondly, on funding, I strongly believe that we should be top-slicing and ringfencing some of the Environment Agency’s funding and giving it to IDBs and strategic flood authorities. It would be a rounding error for the Environment Agency—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to an end, because it is a very short debate and many Members want to come in?

[George Freeman]

Certainly. Do we have 90 minutes?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

We have 60 minutes.

[George Freeman]

I am sorry; I thought we had 90.

We have to put funding in the hands of people who have responsibility. Thirdly, I want to create planning liabilities for development companies so that they have a proper incentive—not just a vague instruction—to upgrade the drainage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should be bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I wish to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson at 5.8 pm, so I am imposing an immediate time limit of two and a half minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I will have to reduce the speaking time to two minutes. I remind hon. Members that if they take interventions, it eats into the time of those who are on the call list.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I must contest my hon. Friend’s suggestion that he represents the wettest part of the country. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding. Part of my constituency lies in the levels and moors site of special scientific interest. The area is increasingly threatened by inappropriate planning applications. Locally elected officials are crucial to good decision making for local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that they play an important role in making sure that the right decisions are made for local communities and our environment?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his time is limited?

[Tim Farron]

I shall take no more interventions. I appear to have opened a very soggy can of worms, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is absolutely correct.

Looking at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and at the attitude of this Government and the previous Government towards planning, they seem to be seeking to centralise control of planning at a national level, yet to relax planning rules at a local level to give local planners, local councillors and national parks less power than they currently have. That is very dangerous. In the last Parliament, I served on the Bill Committee considering the very lengthy Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Among the amendments proposed was one that we referred to as the infrastructure-first amendment. It would have given local authorities and national parks the power to say no to developments unless the infrastructure —including drainage, correct sewage provision and sufficient capacity—was there in advance. That power is so important, and it is missing today.

Many hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have talked about the severe housing crisis. Some 7,000 people in my district are on the council house waiting list. We need to build, yet we know that there are a million properties in this country with planning permission, so it is not that the rules are too tough; it is that the developers are not building. We need to make sure that we point the finger of responsibility in the right direction.

New clause 7 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), would bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Shamefully, I must admit that I was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for environment, food and rural affairs on the Bill that became that Act, 15 flippin’ years ago; I have been our EFRA spokesperson under every leader since Nick Clegg, including under myself, because there were only eight of us and someone had to do it. I remember the Bill very well. What a tragedy, and what an outrage, that schedule 3 to the Act has still not been brought into force, 15 years on. We aim to ensure that it is.

I am mindful of time, but this is a timely debate. Last week, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the deeply concerning issue of flood defence spending. At the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would be a review after the 2025-26 financial year. We are into that financial year now, so we are getting close. It is deeply troubling. My communities in Cumbria were massively affected by Storm Desmond nearly 10 years ago. The cost of that flooding incident was £500 million.

I am watching the clock, so I will simply say this: cutting flood defence spending and taking shortcuts in development that allow flooding to happen are catastrophic false economies—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

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

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing a really important debate. There is no better champion on this issue in Parliament. He is bringing together many all-party parliamentary groups to specifically tackle and bring to the Minister’s attention the important issue of flooding and is setting up his own flood caucus, not only among parliamentary colleagues, but prominently within the county of Norfolk—which is invaluable. My hon. Friend mentioned the 22 villages that have been flooded in his constituency, and all of us have referenced our own impacted communities, so I know just how important this issue is.

I want to address some of my remarks by echoing some of the concerns that have been raised in this debate, because flooding devastates communities, families and the health and wellbeing of individuals who experience the trauma of flooding. It devastates our farmers and our economy at all levels and it represents a threat to life. What is worse, for some it is not a one-off event but a frequent occurrence. Far too many people are impacted. I am proud to say that the previous Government took robust action on flooding. Since 2010, more than 600,000 properties and 900,000 acres of farmland have been better protected by Government-backed schemes. In 2020, the Government announced a doubling of the flood defences budget, including £100 million for the frequently flooded allowance.

While those statistics represent vital progress, we must recognise, as has been indicated, that there is always much more to do. I will just canter through some of the points that have been made, because it is quite right that when dealing with water and with flooding, a catchment approach is always the focus. That deals with not only our farmers, but with our housing developers and our infrastructure providers. It starts right at the top, upstream, dealing with our moorland restoration projects and ensuring that our farmers have the funding to deal with environmental mitigation. That is why it is deeply frustrating that the Government have stopped sustainable farming incentive applications. While there is an acknowledgment that they have opened it up to an additional 303,000 applications on the back of our calls, it is nevertheless worrying to many of our farming community. That is exacerbated by issues such as the family farm tax, which is creating uncertainty in our agricultural sector.

The role of developers has been mentioned by all in this room and I agree that water companies need to be statutory consultees as part of that process. I also agree that planning considerations such as SuDS ponds and the design of houses—as has been illustrated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Julie Minns)—need to be taken into account when new developments are built. Financial contributions must be considered too, because far too often flood alleviation schemes are not established at speed to deal with the amount of development that is coming down the line. That impacts not only settlements further downstream, but agricultural businesses. Therefore, when looking at flood alleviation schemes, it is right that those schemes are attractive enough for a landowner to enter into such an arrangement, and therefore the remuneration that is associated with those flood alleviation schemes needs to be properly addressed.

The Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and land managers were also discussed. We very strongly advocate a loosening up of the relationship between the Environment Agency, our IDBs, who do a fantastic job recognised by many in this room, and the land managers—who sometimes just want to get on and clean the ditches, but are unfortunately penalised for doing so at the moment. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the advice from officials in the Environment Agency is “do not dredge” and “do not remove that vegetation from those EA-managed assets”. I would encourage the Minister to push back on that advice and say that dredging is an option further downstream and that removing vegetation from EA assets should be a consideration.

I also address the issue of insurance, because that is vitally important, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Flood Re is incredibly important if we are able to provide reassurance for those developments that have been built after the kick-in date. We would advocate the Government going stronger and faster with the recommendations that have been made in this debate.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Could I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge of the debate to wind up?

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

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

[Emma Hardy]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I can confirm that this Government and the CPS take seriously prosecuting all crimes, including the most serious ones. Equality before the law is a fundamental principle that underpins the rule of law and is foundational to this country.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Many victims are so traumatised after an assault that it takes them some time to come forward. That causes delays and allows perpetrators to erase their traces. What more can we do to encourage any victim of assault to come forward as quickly as possible, knowing that they will have support as soon as they report something?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member raises an important point. The CPS is working right across the country to ensure that victims feel more able to come forward and that its service to victims improves. She will understand that the court backlog is key; unfortunately, we inherited a record court backlog from the previous Government, and we have to tackle it. The Lord Chancellor is taking a range of measures to get it down, so that victims will have the confidence that when they come forward they will have their day in court and justice will be done.

Climate and Nature Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member; in fact, it is quite nice to hear the Liberal Democrats acknowledge that they were actually part of the Government over the last 14 years—they do not always choose to do so. As to the point about national security and energy security, that is why I am so concerned about the Labour Government’s plans for our offshore oil and gas industry. Why would we want to rely more on imports, as the Government will, should they go ahead and accelerate the decline in the North sea? However, I am sure we will continue to have that debate as we move forward.

If this private Member’s Bill contained measures to ensure a pragmatic and proportionate response to climate change, with households and bill payers at its core, and defended our British wildlife, nature and countryside, I am sure we would all support its aims and ambitions. Indeed, colleagues and friends who support it do so with the admirable, and indeed laudable, intention of seeing the United Kingdom protect the environment, and it is not that ambition with which we take umbrage. However, it is clear that we should not support the damaging measures the Bill would require. If it became law, it would damage our country, our prosperity, the lives of individuals and industries across the United Kingdom.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I wonder where the shadow Minister was when the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, just 15 minutes ago, that this is not an either/or between prosperity and protecting nature and the climate.

[Andrew Bowie]

I was actually right here on the Front Bench listening to my hon. Friend, and I agreed with a lot of what he said. However, we are here to debate the contents of the Bill and to decide whether they are something we should support, and I am afraid—to break with the consensus that has been expressed across the House this morning—that we cannot.

The Bill would undermine the power of this Parliament and its democratically elected Members and would bind their hands. As the Bill suggests, the Secretary of State would be duty-bound to act as directed by an unelected body. A world with a cleaner climate and with thriving nature and wildlife is one we all aspire to; it is the core belief of Conservativism that we should seek to leave the country and the world in a better place than that in which we found them, for both our children and our grandchildren. But I am afraid that this Bill would not do that.

In government, we aspired to be a world leader in the energy sector and to embrace a new energy mix that would reduce our carbon footprint, and that is what we did. We should want to pave the way for other nations, but it should be a path that they would actually want to follow. If the Bill means green levies, soaring bills, the highest electricity prices in the world, boiler taxes, job losses, and rejecting our ability to produce fuel domestically, while increasing imports from abroad and generating lower tax revenues as a result, nobody will follow this path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I am going to speak at great length on flooding and water and the measures we have already taken—I have several pages on that.

Let me say what this mission-driven Government are all about. We know one of our missions is to make the UK a clean energy superpower, including accelerating to net zero emissions while seizing the economic opportunities that come with that. We are back in the business of climate leadership and will restore the UK’s position as a global leader on climate action, delivering at home and working abroad with our international partners.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I can confirm, having been a Member of the previous Parliament, that I see a transformative difference in what this Government are doing compared with the previous Government. I also absolutely believe in cross-party working. A crucial aspect of the Bill is that it ensures we in the UK account for overseas emissions and ecological damage driven by our imports. Can she confirm that the Government will also look at emissions from our imports?

Environmental Protection

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats welcome this initiative from the Government, although in our manifesto we went further and committed ourselves to introducing a deposit return scheme for food and drink bottles and containers.

We agree with the Government that a scheme of this kind will foster a nature-positive economy, tackle plastic pollution, and boost recycling efforts across Britain. Such schemes are a proven strategy worldwide to increase recycling while minimising waste and littering: they support our environmental goals while also providing an income stream that will protect our public funds. However, I have some concerns about the scheme’s implementation.

The Environment Agency is currently underfunded and struggling to meet its regulatory obligations, particularly in respect of water quality, so we must ensure that this statutory instrument comes with appropriate support and additional funding for the agency to handle this new responsibility effectively. The scheme should also be as convenient as possible for people, whether they are “on the go” or at home, and—as has already been mentioned—small businesses need support in order to transition smoothly into the new system. We must ensure that the introduction of a deposit return scheme does not add to their financial burden. We should be seeking to work with small grocery businesses and convenience retailers to help them to introduce the scheme in an affordable way.

I urge the Government to operate a joint scheme throughout the United Kingdom. The Food & Drink Federation has called for a joined-up scheme across the UK, and only this morning I attended a roundtable event on the future of recycling where it was agreed that different schemes in different parts of the UK would make it extremely difficult for those in the industry. They operate throughout the UK, and it would not be viable for them to sell different products in the devolved nations; moreover, they have no control over which parts of the UK their products would be sold or deposited in. A can of soft drink purchased in Bristol should be deposited in the same way as one purchased in Cardiff. A single UK scheme, aligned in scope, fees, processes and labelling, is essential to minimise costs and prevent confusion—and, in that context, it is important that we learn the lessons of the Scottish deposit return scheme.

We must also consider the important role that local authorities will play in making the scheme work successfully, and ensure that they are properly supported. That too has been mentioned during the debate.

Many local authorities collect from the kerbside in bins or boxes, where recycling is co-mingled and then sent on to another company, which sorts and separates the recycled materials. The cost to local authorities for this service depends on whether items can be recycled for a profit by such companies: if they can make a profit from the items that people recycle, councils will be charged less. Some councils now worry that dry and mixed recycling will become less valuable if cans are included in the deposit return scheme, which will lead to higher costs for local authorities, whose resources are already stretched. So far, DEFRA has committed to work to understand the impact of the DRS on local authorities, and I hope that it will be fully considered.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of the deposit return scheme. We have some reservations about its implementation, but it is a positive step towards a more sustainable and green future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

As I have mentioned, this is an important issue, and I look forward to discussing it in more detail. Work to assess the risks of PFAS, and to inform policy and regulatory approaches—including banning or highly restricting certain chemicals and addressing issues caused by their historical use—is continuing. The nature of PFAS chemicals and their persistence once in the environment means that there are no quick fixes, but this is a global challenge. Innovation in suitable PFAS alternatives is needed, and we are working to harness industry leadership in the transition away from PFAS. I assure the hon. Lady that work on this issue is ongoing.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

6. What his planned timetable is for the introduction of legislation to ban imports of hunting trophies.

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

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, all the staff of the House, and all those in our public services who will be working over the weekend a very merry Christmas and a safe and successful new year?

The UK has a long history of championing the global conservation of endangered species. We are in the process of extending the Ivory Act 2018 to include four further species—hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal and sperm whale—in addition to elephants. The Government have also committed to banning the import of hunting trophies. We are considering the most effective way to do so.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It has been 10 years since the senseless killing of Cecil the lion. It is still legal to import hunting trophies into this country. There has for a long time been cross-party support for banning trophy hunting. In 2023, the Labour party asked the then Conservative Government, “What is stopping you bringing in legislation? Stop the dither and delay.” Why are this Government still dithering and delaying?

[Mary Creagh]

With the greatest of respect, the hon. Lady’s party was in government for five years, and the Conservative party was in government for 14 years. It is always good after five months in office to be criticised for previous failures.

I agree with the hon. Lady that the Conservatives cannot be trusted on animal welfare. They failed to pass the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which would have stopped selfish hunters who slaughter and display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification, and they dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which would have ended puppy smuggling, puppy farming and pet theft. As I say, we are looking for a suitable legislative vehicle, and we will do it in Government time.