Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

We learned from the Public Accounts Committee report that 500 flood defence projects have been cancelled, just like the one in Lowestoft. Whether the Minister chooses to use the words “cancelled,” “deferred,” “delayed” or “on a long list” makes no difference, because he is still refusing to tell us where those projects are. Why does he insist on holding residents in contempt by not telling them the fate of their local flood defences?

[Robbie Moore]

I and my officials have been reviewing the applications that have been put forward, and announcements will be coming very soon. The Government are investing £1.3 billion in flood defences, which is more than ever before, and we will continue to ensure that we are better protecting coastal communities.

Draft Management of Hedgerows (England) Regulations 2024

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

It is vital that our precious hedgerows once again enjoy the security that was granted to them under cross-compliance regulations. As we have heard, they serve as habitats for a huge array of wildlife, including bats, birds and bees, while playing an important role as stores of carbon. These incredible marvels also help land managers to adapt to climate change by sheltering livestock and crops, and mitigating flood risk by regulating water flows. We will not be opposing the draft legislation. However, it is concerning that it has taken the Government so long to bring the changes forward, and I have several questions for the Minister about the operation of the regulations.

Following the withdrawal of the cross-compliance regulations on 1 January this year, there has been a gap in the protection of hedgerows. This statutory instrument should have come much earlier to ensure that these remarkable wonders, and homes to a rich variety of natural life, were not vulnerable to damage. As mentioned, the no-cutting period has run from 1 March to 31 August in previous years, and will do so from next year. However, cutting is currently allowed, which presents a massive risk to hedgerows. Farmers and land managers, the erstwhile custodians of our fields and hedges, are under immense pressure at the moment, not least because of the Government’s botched transition to environmental land management schemes.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has tarnished its covenant with English farmers by failing to spend over £200 million in support. That money is simply sitting in its coffers while farmers struggle to make ends meet. Removing protections at that moment created the real risk that stretched farmers will be presented with impossible choices, and that our exceptional network of hedges will suffer as a consequence.

The draft legislation is an opportunity for the Government to replicate the benefits provided by cross-compliance rules while amending and improving those regulations. The no-cutting period set out in the draft legislation replicates the previous March to August ban. We know that the break in cutting offers hedgerows and their inhabitants vital respite, so will the Minister explain why she did not consider extending the no-cutting period to September? That would have made good on a genuine positive of Brexit and helped wild species, such as the hazel dormouse, that breed into late September.

The draft regulations will keep the definition of important hedgerows that is set out in cross-compliance guidance. That is to be welcomed, but that definition differs from the one in the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, which is far too prescriptive and convoluted. The Department now has the chance to make these definitions consistent and remove any uncertainty for farmers and land managers, avoiding confusion and differing standards. Will the Minister commit to simplifying the definition of an important hedgerow and making it consistent so that there can be no doubt what it is that we are so keen to protect?

Despite the chance to amend and improve cross-compliance rules, the regulations replicate exemptions for which there is simply no basis. The majority of respondents to the Minister’s own consultation were against many of the exemptions and said that several should not be replicated. Why is the Minister so determined to repeat these errors in the face of evidence and informed opinion from the sector? In many cases, there is simply no need for the exemptions. Guidance to support land managers to plant sustainable and nature-boosting rotational management of hedgerows would be a viable alternative to creating unnecessary loopholes.

Under the rules that the Minister has presented, fields smaller than 2 hectares will not be required to have a buffer strip to protect their hedgerows. We know how essential buffer strips are to making sure that hedgerows can thrive and continue to perform their crucial role: as we have heard, they host a variety of threatened species and are corridors in what can be challenging terrain for mammals and invertebrates. Strips around hedgerows can also help to halt pesticides and fertilisers, meaning that they do not end up in our water system—and we know what a dire state our waterways are in. The recent, record-breaking sewage statistic showed that raw sewage was swilling into our rivers, lakes and streams for a staggering 3.6 million hours over the past 12 months, so it is difficult to understand why the Government would do anything to further degrade the quality of our water.

The exemption will lead to huge numbers of hedgerows being unprotected, despite the evidence that hedgerows in small fields punch well above their weight. They provide remarkably high-quality habitats for animals and offer sanctuary for wildlife, allowing connectivity between the animals’ various homes. A staggering 77% of respondents to the Government’s consultation said that the exemption for fields smaller than 2 hectares should not be replicated. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the replication of that exemption to make sure that all hedgerows, irrespective of the size of the field that they are in, can be protected for the benefit of nature?

Hedgerows that are less than five years old will not be protected by buffer strips. Youthful hedges are particularly vulnerable to the challenges that are occasionally—or more than occasionally—posed by British weather, chemical pesticide sprays and disturbances to their roots. The justification for the exemption is to

“allow spot-application of herbicides to control weeds”,

but the risk of damage from agricultural work within fields far outweighs the danger posed by weeds within hedges. When asked whether the exemption in cross-compliance rules—under which no buffer strips are required around hedges under five years old—should be replicated in the new legislation, an overwhelming 80% of respondents to the Government’s own consultation answered no. Will the Minister commit to removing this exemption to make sure that nascent hedges, the ancient hedgerows of tomorrow, are given the best possible chance to thrive?

The draft regulations will also change the process that farmers have to follow for the exemption for cutting to sow oilseed rape or temporary grass in August. Farmers will no longer have to apply to the Rural Payments Agency for the exemption; they will merely have to notify the RPA that they have undertaken the cutting. This relaxation could massively increase the use of the exemption. Has the Minister undertaken any assessment of the potential impact? The exemption could be avoided with stronger guidance to land managers on their use of margins.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that any plan is only as good as its implementation. That is why the Government really must say more about their approach to non-compliance and enforcement of protections. Under cross-compliance rules, non-compliance resulted in a reduction in the basic payment that a land manager received, potentially amounting to 5% of their basic payment.

Failure to comply with the new rules may result in a fine. We have no way of knowing how those fines will compare to the penalties that were given out in the past for failing to comply. Any watering down of enforcement tools would represent a retreat and would be to the detriment of our hedgerows. Will the Minister commit to publishing estimates on the level of fines that she expects to see for these new offences? Will she reassure me that they will be consistent with the previous penalty levels?

The draft regulations also mark a shift in the Government’s approach to enforcement. Mistakes will not be penalised and are listed as a valid defence. It is absolutely right that the Department develop strong, collaborative relationships with farmers, and it is clear that the Government have much to do to regain the trust of the sector. However, does the Minister have any evidence to support this change to the enforcement approach? This alteration will mean much more work for the Environment Agency, which had its budget halved in the decade to 2022. Making sure that the new rules are observed by all land managers is vital if hedgerows are to thrive.

It is deeply disappointing that a gap in the protection of hedgerows was allowed to be created following the end of cross-compliance rules. We will not oppose these changes. I welcome the Government finally returning to the protections that these remarkable natural assets need. They do so much more than neatly divide our countryside; they suck down carbon, host a startling variety of wildlife, help to protect our waterways and act as essential highways for all creatures great and small. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Minister for supporting the draft regulations and agreeing with Government Members about how important our hedgerows are for our landscape, our wildlife, our soil protection, our livestock protection and the all-important carbon storage. I think we are in complete agreement about that, and about the need for the draft regulations.

The shadow Minister raised a range of points. I will deal with some of them, but if she would like anything else in writing, I am happy to send it. There were a lot of individual points about all the different exemptions. Yes, there are quite a lot of exemptions, but there are reasons for them all that have been closely consulted on.

The shadow Minister raised a point about whether there was a delay. We held a consultation, as I mentioned, and there was such a strong response: more than 9,000 people responded. That all had to be considered before we could move on. That is partly why we have waited until now, but I am pleased to say that we are now moving on forthwith.

There are already many legal protections in place for hedgerows, as well as regulations to protect nesting birds. The shadow Minister mentioned that there might be a gap in protection before the draft regulations come in, but we have the existing regulations, as well as a load of other agri-environment schemes farmers are already in, which do a great deal of good work to protect hedges. As I have pointed out, farmers have been very supportive of the new legislation, which is partly why we are bringing it in. We have listened to them about some exemptions.

Mindful of the time factor, and mindful of nesting cycles and the seasons, we plan to bring the draft regulations into force as soon as possible: on the day after they are made. There will, however, be a phased approach for the buffer strip requirements for those who do not already have them in place, or for those who are going to harvest a crop first and then put the buffer in.

The draft regulations are designed to give our hedgerows the protection that they need. I have explained the need to consider the consultation; exceptions to the rules have been made, where necessary, to ensure a balance between hedge protection and effective farming. That is really important, especially in the light of food security.

The shadow Minister made particular mention of an exemption for buffer strips in fields of 2 hectares. She should consider that if buffer strips are put there, the field would largely be eaten up and there would not be a lot of room for growing crops. We have listened to comments about that, which is why that provision is there.

[Emma Hardy]

I am very happy for the Minister to write to me with a more detailed response to the questions I have raised. I apologise if she was about to do so, but can she comment on why there is an exemption for hedgerows under five years old? We are not going to have the ancient hedgerows of the future if we do not protect the new ones we are growing today? [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. May I ask the Members in the corner to listen in silence, please? This is an important SI.

Flood Recovery Framework

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This has been an enjoyable and informed debate. I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) who is hugely respected for his knowledge of environmental issues. The years he has devoted to further and create better policy are admired. I am grateful to him for bringing this debate to the Chamber and lending his expertise on flooding, I hope not for the last time before the end of this Parliament. Of course, I completely agree about the complex patchwork of support.

I would also like to mention the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). I completely agree with his comment about being caught on the back foot when flooding occurs, and the difficulty in getting urgent support out there. I cannot resist the opportunity to mention sustainable urban drainage systems; I managed to get it into a “Politics North” programme the other day. There are ways to build homes and mitigate flooding, but that requires a different Department to answer questions. If the hon. Member is a keen supporter of flood recovery, he should have a look at sustainable urban drainage.

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) was really interested in the River Severn Partnership, which sounds fascinating. I would be keen to know how the business case goes and get a little more information on that. I agree that it cannot operate as a silo. Water does not care about which Member of Parliament it is or which political party they are in, or even which boundary; water will go its own way. I am quite interested in the sound of that.

I am interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who is definitely one of the hardest-working Members of Parliament from any party, has to say and her level of knowledge. If at any time I want an invite to York—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend for consistently raising that point and others with me in my role as Minister. I assure him that all measures and schemes will be reviewed. Having requested a visit from me to come and see some of his businesses in Stapleford, I look forward to coming very soon to address the flooding issues that he and his constituents have experienced.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is aware, Shropshire County Council, which includes his Ludlow constituency, is eligible to receive funding following Storms Babet and Henk. The Government have recently opened the farming recovery fund, currently in nine areas, to support farmers who have suffered uninsurable damage to their land as a result of Storm Henk. Farmers will be able to receive grants of up to £25,000 towards reinstatement costs for farmland adversely affected by exceptional flooding. I fully recognise right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns about the announcement that the Department made last week. I assure all Members, and indeed those outside this place, that Ministers are actively reviewing the Department’s announcement last week.

My right hon. Friend also voiced some important questions about the schemes. He rightly raised the concern that holding the eligibility count at the lead local flood authority level, which is unitary or upper-tier councils, poses a problem for some local authorities, and that the threshold of 50 internally flooded properties as an eligibility criterion could be considered unfair to smaller local flood authority areas. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that that will be reviewed.

Let me address the concerns raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) that the threshold was actually increased. Following flooding in 2020, and on the back of representations from local authorities, the flood eligibility criterion was reviewed. Previously, the eligibility criterion set by DLUHC for the flood recovery framework to be activated was 25 internally flooded residential units over a district local authority area. Following feedback, that was reviewed and reduced to a threshold of 50 properties, whether commercial or otherwise—not just residential properties—over a unitary authority area, which is a bigger geographical area. The threshold was therefore reduced, not increased, as the hon. Member wrongly claimed.

[Emma Hardy]

I believe that that was the point I made: the threshold had gone from 25 to 50. I am happy to check Hansard and correct any mistake if I made one— I am not sure that I did—but that does not resolve the point that I was making, which was about where the arbitrary number of 50 came from. If there are 49 properties on each side of a border, there will be no actual impact. It has been increased, and there has not been a consultation to explain exactly why.

[Robbie Moore]

I reassure all Members that the threshold was changed so that we could get much more support out to business and households. As I have already said, however, I have asked for alternative geographical boundaries to be considered for future activations, and discussed with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities the appropriate threshold for future events. That is under review with stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union. I spoke to the president of the union at several events in previous weeks, so the union is aware. Unfortunately, I think that the shadow Minister slightly misquoted that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow also asked about extra funding to staff local authorities so that they can deliver framework schemes. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), is considering that matter as part of the post-activation review that is currently under way.

I thank all Members for their contributions. I look forward to further conversations with Members regarding this important matter, to ensure that the Government are getting as much support as possible to those impacted by flooding.

Draft Water Industry (Special Administration) Regulations 2024 Draft Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 2024

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

It is essential that customers enjoy the continuous provision of water services irrespective of how the company that manages their water supply performs, so we support the changes, which will give a degree more security to people’s water provision. Unfortunately, the challenges of the water sector are more fundamental than the changes would suggest. I fear that tinkering in this way shows that the Government are failing to grasp the scale of the issues that face water provision in this country and the state of the crisis at which we have arrived.

We know that sewage is spilling into our waterways and beauty spots at a wholly unacceptable rate. Water companies discharged untreated sewers more than 399,864 times in 2022, which amounted to 1,091 times a day. I am sure the Minister agrees that the consequences of that mismanagement are awful: damage to precious habitats and natural life, reduced access to nature for some of those who face the sternest barriers, and a palpable sense of the sector failing to keep its house in order. He will be aware that we have set out robust solutions to the crisis, including criminal responsibility for water bosses, the introduction of large, immediate fines and the mandatory automatic monitoring of outlets to ensure that every spillage is recorded.

I have no doubt that many of our constituents will struggle with the profound sense of unfairness that runs through this debate. Despite consistently poor environ-mental performance and racking up huge debts, the water industry continues to pay large dividends and bonuses to shareholders and bosses. It should not be profitable for companies to pollute and fail to meet environmental legislation and for water and sewage infrastructure to be unfit for purpose. It should also not be acceptable for the water industry to pass the cost of legal compliance on to customers—they have already been funded to deliver it.

That legislative changes are necessary reflects the desperate and perilous situation that the sector has reached, with many companies on the precipice. Not only are water companies failing to deliver a clean and safe environment for water users, but many of them are struggling to function as effective businesses and keep their head above their mucky water. Regulators have raised serious concerns about the solvency of Thames Water, and the Government have even discussed temporary nationalisation measures. We also know that Thames Water, Southern Water and South East Water have been using up to 25% of customer bills to service the huge debts they have built up. It is not right that, again and again, customers are leveraged to cover the poor performance of those businesses.

The combination of the public health threat posed by the sewage scandal and the potential threat to taxpayers and customers posed by the instability of water companies demonstrates clearly that a radical rethink of how the water sector, regulators and Government work together is needed. The future of the sector must be based on sustainable finances and driven by a culture that values both customers and the environment. People must be kept safe and the best environmental outcomes must be achieved per pound spent.

As the Minister will be aware, a special administration order is intended to ensure that service is not interrupted when a water company becomes unviable. That means customers will continue to be provided with water services. Water companies also have a significant environmental duty, which may be interrupted if a company becomes insolvent. Do the new regulations also guarantee that any special administrator will continue to discharge a company’s environmental obligations, including investment commitments under the water industry national environ-ment programme, catchment plans and infrastructure upgrades?

Clarity around the criteria for the introduction of the special administrator is essential to all of this. Unless owners and shareholders believe that there is a genuine risk of them losing their licence, they have no real incentive to promote good corporate behaviour or environmental performance. Reading the 2019 Southern Water enforcement decision, one could be left wondering what it would possibly take for a licence to be removed. If multiple and deliberate breaches of environmental law and repeated deception of the regulator by the provision of falsified performance information is not enough, what fear can those in the sector really have? Ofwat must be much clearer on when owners lose the licence through special administration. Will the Minister commit to setting the bar for special administration in legislation?

As I have set out, we have grave concerns about the ability and motivation of water companies to meet environmental standards and take the crisis of sewage spilling seriously. The Water Industry Act 1991 states that a special administration order may be granted when a company is failing to fulfil its statutory functions. The regulations give the Government the opportunity to clarify that the imposition of a special administration can also be used as the ultimate sanction for water company pollution. That would send a powerful message to water companies and their bosses that the Government were intending to crack down on the issue and that environmental responsibility must be a central pillar of any business plan. Will the Minister confirm that the violation of environmental law constitutes a failure to fulfil a statutory duty under the terms of chapter 2 of the 1991 Act? Does the Minister commit to applying for a special administration order where a company shows consistent and flagrant breaches of its environmental duties?

The changes must go much further to solve the problems in the water sector. The Government must establish a clear, strategic regulatory framework that sets out the long-term vision for the water sector and how that will contribute towards achieving environmental targets and outcomes. More broadly, the Government must give stronger direction on the types of solutions needed and ensure that that is reflected in the regulatory framework to enable the greater uptake and use of catchment and nature-based solutions.

The Government must also recognise the role that years of cuts have played in creating the crisis. The sector is largely operating using a self-reporting model to evidence compliance with legislation. Self-reporting does not work. In 2022, only 48% of serious pollution incidents were self-reported, while many serious incidents were simply downgraded by water companies so as not to affect their environmental score. Ofwat and the Environment Agency must have the necessary resources to deliver a robust monitoring and enforcement regime.

The Opposition will support the changes, but I hope the Government understand the need for further consideration of the environmental responsibilities of water companies, in this legislation and in the future. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[The Chair]

I remind Members to stick to the scope of the regulations. We are not here to debate the wider issues facing the water industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and for Bath for their important contributions, although I must say it was good that they eventually came back on to the script, so to speak. The statutory instruments will enable the Government to facilitate a more effective and efficient water industry special administration regime, ensuring that they are prepared in all eventualities to ensure uninterrupted provision for vital public services.

Let me briefly address some of the questions and points raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. Before I get into the detail, I should say that I was pleased to hear her reference self-monitoring, because that was brought in by the Labour party when it was in power, in a water industry Act. We have increased the amount of monitoring that we are doing from 7% in 2010 to the 100% that we saw rolled out in 2023.

I will get back to the point. We are taking clear and decisive action to improve water quality. Our plan for water is delivering more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement for our water system, and we are clear that water companies must not profit from environmental damage. Through that plan, we will transform our management of water systems, deliver cleaner water for nature and people, and secure a plentiful water supply.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle made reference to storm overflows, so let me clarify the amount of investment going into them. Our plan for water sets stringent targets on companies to improve storm overflows, which will drive the largest infrastructure programme in water company history, with £60 billion of capital investment over 25 years. We are clear that the volume of sewage being discharged into our waters is utterly unacceptable. However, storm overflows cannot just be switched off, as some have suggested; they are an automatic feature designed to stop sewage backing up into our properties.

We introduced the statutory instruments to update the existing regulations set in place under the 1991 Act so that, should we get to a scenario in which we need to utilise the special administration regime, we are in a position to do so. I will clarify that since privatisation the private water sector model has unlocked about £215 billion of investment; I raise that point because the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle referenced nationalisation. Since privatisation that has been equivalent to about £6 billion being invested annually, which is almost double the pre-privatisation level.

[Emma Hardy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will carry on for now.

The hon. Lady quite rightly asked how customers may be impacted should a special administration regime be put in place. We will always act to protect customers as a priority, and any intervention that would put pressure on the public purse would be considered seriously and as a last resort. Dividends are an important part of the investor return and should provide an adequate return that reflects company performance. If a company did not pay its dividends, it would struggle to access the finances to fund investment, impacting on the service for future customers.

In each year since privatisation in 1989, investment has been greater than the dividends paid, but a sustained level of investment in the water industry will continue only if the shareholders of companies can expect a fair return. Companies must pay for new investment up front, so need to secure a large amount of funding to pay for that. To avoid customer bills increasing drastically to pay for that, companies may secure money by raising debt or equity, or through shares in the company or investors.

The hon. Lady also asked whether a company in special administration will have to adhere to the same standards as the rest of the sector. The answer simply is yes. The special administrator will manage the affairs, business and property of the company according to the same statutory obligations as any other water company.

To build on that, the hon. Lady also asked for clarity on whether a water company could be placed in special administration. In general, special administration can be applied for on insolvency grounds, when the company might be unable to pay its debts or when liabilities are greater than its assets—as I said in my opening remarks—or in instances where water companies are in serious breach of their principal statutory duties or an enforcement order.

[Emma Hardy]

The Minister mentioned the failure to fulfil statutory duties, but will he confirm whether a violation of environmental law constitutes a failure to fulfil statutory duties?

[Robbie Moore]

Every water company is specifically regulated by the Environment Agency, as well as Ofwat. The Environment Agency will have powers if water companies are owned and operating under the regime they operate under now, or should they enter special administration.

On the hon. Lady’s point about Ofwat, it is clear from Ofwat’s performance report that there has been marked decline in performance over the past year. That has been driven by company-specific factors, but also by the effects of extreme weather, including the unusually hot and dry summer we had. The Environment Agency and Ofwat have powers of enforcement, and those powers will not change under a special administration regime.

I have addressed the points that were made, so I commend the draft statutory instruments to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Water industry Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 2024.—(Robbie Moore.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Hopefully Emma Hardy will get us back on track. I call the shadow Minister.

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

I recently met with farmer Henry Ward, who showed me the extensive and damaging flooding right across his farmland caused by two breaches in the river after a storm. The Environment Agency is unable to tell him when it will have the resources to repair those breaches. This means that Henry not only lost all the crop that was flooded, but will be unable to plant a new crop in spring. He is not the only farmer to be impacted. When will the Government realise that their failure to be decisive and get ahead of the problem of weak defences is costing farmers their livelihoods and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We only get until 10 o’clock—to take advantage is just not fair. We must have briefer questions from the Front Bench.

Coastal Erosion: Suffolk and Norfolk

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is, as always, a very real pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Angela. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate and, as always, offering a thoughtful and considered contribution. He may not know this, but I always think of him quite fondly, because he was the first person that I ever intervened on in a Westminster Hall debate, so I am pleased to respond to him in a slightly different role.

I also thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) for highlighting the number of homes at risk and emphasising the need for certainty when it comes to climate risk. I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for emphasising the importance of coastal defences and the need to allocate money effectively. I also have to mention the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis), because I had a wonderful holiday in his constituency in summer 2020, when we were unable to go abroad. I had a wonderful time in Great Yarmouth; it is a place I think of fondly.

I recently watched an ITV piece about the flooding situation in the area, and I want to quote from it to emphasise the human cost of coastal erosion and flooding. I should also mention that the issue is very personal to me: I represent Hull, which is at risk from various types of flooding, and am an east coast MP, so I am unfortunately very familiar with coastal erosion and flooding. I quote the piece:

“When Carol Boyes retired to Hemsby with her late husband 20 years ago, she couldn’t see the sea. There were two rows of bungalows in front of her. Now, it’s approaching her doorstep. The road outside is collapsing, much of it lies smashed on the beach. At 78, Carol will soon be homeless.”

It is worth highlighting that human cost. Flooding and coastal erosion are personal: we are talking about people losing their businesses and their homes, and I want to recognise that. My heart goes out to all those who are devastated by coastal erosion and tidal surges.

[Sir Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a hugely important human aspect to this issue. Having been to the area and met residents who are losing their properties, I could not help but be moved by the tragedy of what they are facing. Does the hon. Lady also agree that there is an onus and requirement on private landowners? That is one of the complications in Hemsby: the Geoffrey Watling Trust is not doing anything to protect the road that it owns, on its property, to help residents such as those the hon. Lady mentions. The council is doing great work and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) outlined, other organisations are working very hard, but we also need private landowners to step up and do the right thing to help those people.

[Emma Hardy]

I agree that this has to be a group effort. Whether they are private landowners, the public sector or the individual people living there, everybody stands to gain from protecting properties, so it has to be a group effort.

Because the issue is so personal and means so much to people, it is disappointing that the Government have not made a priority of it. I recognise that the Minister is fairly new, but part of the reason for the lack of priority is the number of fairly new Ministers that have been looking at this area. That lack of priority means that communities are now paying the price: 203,000 properties that have already had flood protection face an increased risk because of a £34-million shortfall in the Environment Agency’s maintenance funding for 2023. I mention that because maintenance has already come up in the debate. The Environment Agency actually has the funding, and there was an underspend, but the National Audit Office report stated that, because of Treasury rules, that money could not be allocated to maintenance. That seems to be an immediate solution that the Minister could offer. Does the Minister know what has happened to the 4,200 flood defences that have been rated as poor or very poor? Does he know how many defences have been damaged by Storms Babet and Ciarán, and will he update us on what is happening with those? As has been mentioned, we have had a problem in this area for over 100 years, but we still have yet to have a solution offered by the Government.

I have personally heard concerns about the situation in the Pakefield area of Lowestoft from Councillor Peter Byatt and Jess Asato, Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Lowestoft. Councillor Byatt told me that although some work has been done, without emergency funding being released to provide the required coastal armour, they face the real prospects of losing around 30 homes, as well as more of the caravan park, which is a vital part of their local economy. Jess told me that the Government have been warned about this for years, so she was incredibly frustrated for residents who feel they are being left to the mercy of the waves.

Coastal communities collectively perform poorly on the Government’s chosen matrix for levelling-up funding. Again, the solution does not involve offering more money; it is about the formula used to allocate money. The investment criteria for round 3 of the levelling-up fund does not include standalone coastal defence schemes that are not part of a wider transport regeneration or culture bid. Will the Minister say whether there are plans to change the formula for the levelling-up bid, so that areas like all those mentioned could bid for that money for coastal defences?

The Environment Agency’s funding formula to protect communities does not consider the cost of flooding to hospitality and tourism industries. That point was raised by one of the Conservative Members. It is allocated on the basis of homes, not businesses. That is something on which many coastal communities rely heavily. Coastal communities are missing out on two different funding matrices. They miss out on being able to access the levelling-up money and the Environment Agency’s funding formula.

To answer the question, “What will Labour do?”, which I am sure is on the tip of everyone’s tongue, Labour will establish a flood resilience taskforce, which will meet every winter ahead of the peak season for extreme weather. This COBRA-style taskforce will co-ordinate flooding and coastal erosion preparation by central Government, local authorities, local communities and the emergency services. It will ensure that vulnerable areas are identified. The need for mapping, to understand climate change and to identify where the risk is, was raised by a number of Conservative Members, and I completely agree. Not only do we need to identify those areas, we need a plan for how we will protect them.

The taskforce will work closely with the Environment Agency to ensure that its formula to protect communities considers potential damages to hospitality and tourist attractions when looking at what it protects, not just homes as is currently the case. It will be chaired by a DEFRA Minister and bring together senior civil servants and Ministers across Government. Although sadly I cannot offer hon. Members a Minister for the coast, I will instead offer a Minister for resilience, who will sit in the Cabinet Office. The taskforce will also bring together regional flood and coastal communities and other frontline agencies, including the Environment Agency and the fire service. That Minister for resilience will look not only at coastal erosion and flooding, but at all the other issues that are the natural result of climate change. Our flood resilience taskforce will play a vital role in identifying and protecting vulnerable areas. Under a Labour Government, places such as Hemsby, with the significant contribution it makes to the local economy through tourism, would have greater eligibility for funding for flood and coastal defences.

As I have mentioned, it is not a matter of getting the cheque book out and committing more money. The Government have committed more than £5 billion for flood and coastal defences by 2027. Labour’s plans are about ensuring that the budget already committed to flood defences is used to maximum effect in places such as Hemsby and Pakefield. We also understand that local authorities, in their role as risk-managing authorities, do not receive maintenance funding to support flood defences in the same way the Environment Agency does. The preferred option in the shoreline management plan for Suffolk in the case of Pakefield cliffs is, as has been mentioned, to hold the line. However, there is no long-term plan effectively to manage or finance that. The Government are dodging their responsibility to the people of Lowestoft and all coastal communities where this pattern is repeated time and again. That is why our flood resilience taskforce would ensure that existing funding is properly targeted to the areas in need, and it would provide accountability on the delivery of projects to ensure that they happen on time. While we must, of course, do everything we can to protect existing properties, we must equally ensure that none are built where they will soon face that threat as sea levels rise. As the Minister knows, a local planning authority can designate areas that are at risk from coastal change—in other words, erosion or induration—as coastal change management areas to ensure that there is control over future development. However, in a reply to a written question in October last year, I was informed:

“Neither Defra or the Environment Agency maintain”

any

“record of the number of CCMAs”.

That was still the case when I asked again. If they did, they would know—this is quite shocking—that only 15% of coastal planning authorities have a designated coastal change management area. That means that, for the majority of our coast, there is no plan to manage coastal erosion or the changes happening to it.

My understanding—I have just double-checked this, but correct me if I am wrong—is that there is no coastal change management area covering South Suffolk, but that there is one for North Norfolk. That is extremely worrying. A study by the University of Plymouth found that vulnerable coastal areas have been omitted from coastal change management areas and that only a third of areas that have been designated directly as coastal change management areas aid the coastal community to adapt to future sea level rise and coastal change. What that all basically means is that there is no plan to manage coastal erosion and change for most of our coast, and the Government are not even aware of where there is a plan. Their answer to the written questions was that they have no idea what is happening to plan for change all around our coast. What is the Minister doing to ensure that all coastal planning authorities have a coastal change management area plan?

The situation shows, again, that the Government are asleep at the wheel. They are too distracted by their internal family bickering and are failing the coastal communities of the present and the future. The systems that cause sea level rise—specifically, the thermal expansion of the ocean and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets due to global heating—have a centuries-long time lag. Increased coastal erosion and flooding are here to stay. We need a strategy and a long-term plan to deal with their effects and to support our communities. Only Labour has the plan and the will to do that.

On that promise of a brighter future, at this Christmas time, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and new year. I say thanks to all of the staff and the Doorkeepers. Hopefully, it will be a much brighter and more prosperous 2024.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. As you may have noticed, I am not my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). He is currently unavailable, so I am here in his place. I am sure he will catch up on the debate very quickly.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) on her first debate held here in Westminster Hall. She did well and made an excellent speech. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for her passionate championing of children with special educational needs and how their particular needs need to be met in a very specific way in rural communities. That would have been felt and heard by everybody in this room.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) for mentioning the particular needs of children with special educational needs and how we need to make sure that they do not miss out on anything because of the area in which they live. I quickly want to thank the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for their contributions to this debate. We have had a really interesting discussion.

I want to comment on the issues around broadband. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Latvia and Bulgaria already have at least 85% ultrafast full-fibre broadband coverage, so it is an embarrassment to us in this country that we are so far behind. In fact, we could say that if we were in the slow lane compared with the EU when it comes to our rural communities, we are in a traffic jam because the super-slow roll-out of ultrafast broadband in rural areas is genuinely putting communities at a disadvantage. We have more people working from home, which is something to be pleased and positive about, and more are choosing a rural life, but unfortunately I found out in this debate that only six homes are available in Tiverton, in case anyone wants to move there.

The broadband failure is a major loss. It impacts households and also businesses and productivity. When Project Gigabit was first announced, we were promised it would focus on harder-to-reach areas, but it is clear from Ofcom and DCMS data that the funding is being spent more on easier and cheaper-to-reach areas, many of which already have decent broadband connectivity. That is just because the Government want to be able to hit that figure of 85%. It feels as though the policy is driving what is good in terms of politics but not what is good in rural communities. Can the Minister tell me what proportion of areas not covered by gigabit-capable broadband are in rural areas and what action is being taken to address that?

We have heard from many people commenting on concerns around the availability of bus services. Someone used the phrase “rural isolation”. It is not just about getting to work: it is also about having a life, being able to connect with family and friends, and social activities. The lack of funding for local authorities has forced many communities to make tough decisions when it comes to road maintenance and the lack of availability of rural bus services. Roads are in a disgraceful state. Figures from the RAC say that there could be over 1.5 million potholes in England. I would gently say that election leaflets pointing at potholes, despite the impression they give, do not fix them. What will the Government do to deliver a solution to the potholes we have? Joking aside, 8,100 car breakdowns happen because of potholes.

Labour will act to support our rural communities where the Conservatives have failed. We will not sit back while more shops and local services disappear, while numbers dwindle in village schools so that they risk closure, and while farmers struggle to make ends meet and local people struggle with higher food and energy bills. The Government have failed to recognise that business and growth are not in competition with the environment, and that we can use the green agenda to promote business, increase skills and growth, and rebuild and protect our rural and farming communities. That is what the next Labour Government will do. We will embed rural proofing at the heart of Government and Labour policy and ensure that these areas thrive.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much, shadow Minister. Minister—you know what the timings are.

Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of the Opposition. As everyone can see and hear, I am not the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones)—I do not have the same beautiful Welsh accent. My shadow Department colleague is in the Chamber due to a clash of business, so I am speaking for the Opposition today. My hon. Friend sends her good wishes to one and all here, and I know she will read Hansard tomorrow.

I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening the debate on these two important petitions, and for setting a considered and careful tone, which has been continued throughout the debate—my congratulations on that. I also acknowledge all the colleagues who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), whose contributions I always enjoy. He recognised how emotive this issue is and how much these pets mean to so many people, and that although views are different, we cannot base any kind of ban just on what a dog looks like. That point has been echoed throughout the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) shared her upset over the attacks—I am sure we all echo that— and spoke of her concerns about the current legislation not working. An important point was made about the problem of whether the definition we use is too woolly.

I enjoyed some of the comments from Government Members, particularly the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that the Government, with too large a majority, may appear overly arrogant. I promise that the Opposition are doing everything we can to deal with that, one by-election at a time. More seriously, he made an important point about the imprecision of legislation. The expertise of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), as a vet, has really contributed to the debate. It was the first time I have heard of ear cropping and I share his horror at that awful, awful practice.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Despite our various disagreements, she should be commended for coming here, having faced death threats over her stance on this issue, to defend the legislation that she brought forward. I am utterly appalled by any Member of Parliament—anybody—facing death threats for standing up for what they believe. There might be differences of opinion, but surely we are here to debate them all in a calm and considered manner. That, of course, always comes from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who also mentioned the problems around definitions. So thank you, everyone.

Very importantly, I acknowledge and thank all those up and down the country who signed this petition. When I first started drafting these remarks, more than 600,000 people had signed e-petition 624876, and more than 100,000 people had signed the alternative one. I pay tribute to the person who started the petition. It is very important that these issues are debated. It shows that the petition system is working effectively for our democracy. It is healthy that people can use a petition to share their views and that we bring it here to debate it, and I commend every person who signed it. It is important that we take the time to acknowledge the issues that our constituents really care about.

I also note that a number of Members from across the House have a keen interest in this issue and have campaigned and worked on it for many years. I mention especially my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who has been a doughty and loud campaigner. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West is very grateful for his advice, experience and work.

My hon. Friend, the shadow animal welfare Minister, said that

“the Labour party believes in honouring our animal welfare promises, and we will always push for the strongest possible animal welfare policies.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 135WH.]

We are, as was mentioned, a nation of animal lovers, and pets are part of all our families. That also means that ensuring that dogs are not left or encouraged to become a danger to themselves, their owners, other animals or other people, and it means, as has been mentioned, that owners are responsible and should care for their dogs and treat them in a humane and respectful way.

Like many on this side of the House, I have been deeply concerned by the rise in dog-on-human attacks in recent weeks and months. It is clear that action is needed to improve the Dangerous Dogs Act and for that action to be taken sooner rather than later. The point has come up many times in this debate that we should not look at the Act in isolation, but as part of a wider piece in regard to the legislation, because piecemeal legislation can result in unintended consequences.

It is obvious to us all that dog attacks have increased in number in the 32 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act came into force. Unfortunately, when we talk about the threats posed by dangerous dogs, the facts speak for themselves. From January to July 2020, 7,790 dog attacks occurred across the UK. Just two years later, for the same period, there were 9,834 attacks, which represents a 26% increase. The number of deaths caused by dogs is also very bleak: since 2013, there have been more than five deaths a year, yet last year, 10 people lost their life. I acknowledge the presence today of those who have lost loved ones and who desperately need common sense to win the day. I thank again the hon. Member for Don Valley for mentioning Emma and the death threats and abuse that she has faced. I agree that they are utterly appalling. She has been through enough.

There are a number of reasons why dog attacks have increased recently. It is also the case that dog ownership increased markedly during the covid pandemic. The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals stated that from February 2021 to February 2022, dog ownership figures increased significantly so that—this amazed me when I looked it up—27% of UK adults owned a dog and the UK’s dog population stood at 10.2 million.

Back in 2018, just a short period after my election to this place, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee launched a report that called for a full-scale review of current dog control legislation and policy to ensure that the public were properly protected and animal welfare concerns were effectively addressed. More specifically, the report made 16 recommendations to the Government, the most important of which can be summarised as follows. It called for an end to

“the prohibition on transferring a banned dog if it has been…assessed…and found to be safe.”

It called for a commission to be established to ascertain whether the four banned breeds presented a

“greater risk than any legal breed or cross breed.”

It called for a review of current legislation and policy relating to dogs, and for the development of

“an alternative model that focuses on prevention through education, early intervention, and consistently robust sanctions for offenders”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a progress check on the response to that report and an update. It would also be helpful to know what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales about their approach to this issue, because, as has been mentioned, the legislation covers only England and Wales. It is clear that a joined-up approach to handling this issue will be required and, more specifically, to how we respond across the United Kingdom, not just from an enforcement perspective.

I would like to touch on the first petition, on the American XL bully. As Members across the House will know, Ministers recently announced that they would add the American XL bully to the list of dogs that are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act. There are currently four breeds on that list: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa—I am going to say these terribly—the dogo argentino and the fila braziliero. The current approach to dog control in this country is misguided and does not protect people adequately. We in the Opposition believe that safety must be our top priority, but without unnecessarily punishing responsible dog owners or harming dogs that are not necessarily a risk. A common-sense approach is required, and it is for Ministers to make sure that they deliver one.

I pay tribute to the RSPCA for its work on this and on animal welfare more generally. I very much agreed when it said that, in light of recent serious dog-bite incidents, increased enforcement is necessary to improve human safety, and expressed deep concern for anyone impacted by those tragic incidents.

A knee-jerk reaction—calling for the speedy introduction of a ban on a particular breed—is all well and good, but there are wider implications that must be factored in. The Minister will have heard a number of comments regarding rehoming, and I am keen to know what discussions he has had about that. What will be done to make sure that dogs are not put down because they cannot be rehomed? How can we make sure that a ban will not lead to a very sudden and steep increase in abandonment and stray dogs because owners are worried about the cost of complying with the restrictions? As was mentioned at the beginning of the debate, how this is being communicated to current dog owners?

Will the Minister take a moment to address a specific point that has come up a lot? The RSPCA and other campaign groups are right to point out that the definition of XL bully is very broad indeed. I am extremely concerned about the number of healthy, much loved dogs that will unnecessarily be swept up in the ban. The Minister needs to get a grip on that. As he knows, the animal rescue and veterinary sectors are both under considerable strain and pressure following the pandemic and the cost of living crisis, and there are major concerns about costs and an increased number of animals coming into the sectors’ care. What support are we providing to vets to make sure that they are able to assist and respond to the impact of the ban?

There is much to do to get this right from both a public safety perspective and an animal welfare perspective. I urge the Minister to reach out, listen, and engage with campaigners, stakeholders and owners and the valid concerns that have been raised in this debate. Will he set out what meetings he has had with stakeholders and campaigners on this issue? Engagement and communication with the dog and animal welfare sector will be key to getting this right. The Minister needs to go further, do more, and listen harder.

I have already touched on the need for a real root-and-branch unpicking of dog legislation in this country. The year 1991 seems a very long time ago now. It is right to listen, learn, review and improve, and I urge the Minister to do just that. Will he commit to a full and total review of dog control legislation in this country? If he will, when will it happen? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West will be very happy to have an answer in writing if the Minister is not able to answer that specific question or any of the others I have put to him.

Storm Babet: Flooding

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Our hearts go out to all the family businesses and farmers affected by this tragedy, but especially to those affected by the tragic loss of life. I thank the emergency services and Environment Agency workers for their tireless work around the clock to keep people safe. More than 1,200 properties have been flooded, and hundreds of people have been evacuated from their homes. Lives have been lost.

Events such as Storm Babet are not unexpected, however. We know that floods happen every winter. The Minister’s statement that assets have not been designed “for such rare, extreme levels of rainfall” shows complacency. We know that climate change is bringing more frequent and more severe rainfall events and, as I know from the terrible floods in 2007, where 16,000 properties were flooded in Hull, flooding has a devastating impact on people’s lives, with their belongings lost and businesses destroyed. The country must be better prepared, and we need to take our climate change goals seriously.

It is therefore incredibly worrying that the National Infrastructure Commission stated last week that

“there is no measurable long term national target to reduce flood risk…and the current target does not factor in risk increasing due to climate change.”

To make matters worse, one in six homes in this country is at risk of flooding—a number that is only set to rise. According to the Environment Agency, more than half of local planning authorities surveyed rarely or never inspected new developments to check flood risk planning conditions had been carried out. Research commissioned by insurers found that almost one third of homes built in the five most flood-prone areas were approved without a flood assessment.

The Government are asleep at the wheel. Why have they put homes at risk of flooding by failing to ensure that local planning authorities can carry out essential works? As I told the Minister last Thursday, an estimated 190,000 homes across the country were under threat from inadequately maintained flood defences in 2020. Does the Minister know where these inadequately maintained flood defences are? Did any of them fail over the weekend? Does she have any plans to find out? Are any of the overwhelmed assets that she mentioned these inadequately maintained flood assets? The Government have failed to get a grip on the challenges facing our country over flooding, but these risks, as I keep saying, will only increase.

The independent review of flooding for London in 2021 noted that the inability of organisations to share data and co-ordinate emergency preparedness action had undermined the response to flooding. I note that the Minister referred to the DEFRA and Cabinet Office meetings two days before the floods were due, but that is not nearly enough. It is time that we ended the Tory practice of waiting for disaster to strike. While the Government want to pass off responsibility to other agencies, a Labour Government would establish a Cobra-style flood preparedness taskforce to protect communities from the danger of flooding. We will plan for the long term and co-ordinate central Government, local authorities and emergency services to minimise the damage of flooding every single winter—importantly, before the flooding takes place. That would ensure that communities have the adequate drainage systems and flood defences to protect themselves.

It is time to turn the page on the Tories’ sticking-plaster politics and make the long-term decisions to protect communities from the devastating impact of flooding. That is how we give Britain its future back.

[Rebecca Pow]

First, we are far from complacent; quite the reverse. The hon. Member suggested that we need to be better prepared; that is what our whole flood budget is geared up to doing. That is why we doubled it to £5.2 billion. It was £2.6 billion, and it is now £5.2 billion, with all the associated flooding schemes that that is delivering—both hard infrastructure and a range of nature-based solutions, which are a high proportion of many of our schemes. I would have thought that she for one would have recognised that, given the £42 million invested in Hull—her own constituency. I visited the scheme in 2022—I invited her but do not think that she came to the launch—and the people I met could not have expressed more wholeheartedly what it had done for Hull and how it had protected properties and businesses. It is now attracting businesses to Hull that previously would not have come as it was too risky for flooding. That is a prime demonstration of what the Government are doing.

On asset maintenance, we continue to invest in all our flood and coastal defence maintenance and have dedicated an extra £22 million to maintenance in the current review period of 2024-25. Of course, checking assets and keeping them well maintained is a critical part of the Environment Agency’s work. Virtually 94% of major flood and coastal erosion risk management assets are in their target condition. In addition, when the warnings began a week ago, the Environment Agency and local authorities went out to check assets, clear culverts and drains and do all the small things that make such a big difference to whether there is or is not flooding in our local areas.

On planning applications, the Environment Agency gives advice when there is any suggestion of flood risk, and 96% of all planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk. It is important that there are strong safeguards in place where there is flood risk, and there are, but of course planning departments have to decide whether to take note of the Environment Agency’s advice. We are working hard with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on this very issue—I see the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), in his place alongside me—as it is critical to protecting our island.

I would have thought the hon. Lady would have welcomed the Cabinet Office meetings. We already have exactly what she is asking for, as we do have a national flood response centre with the Cabinet Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and various Government Departments engaging. That was set up on Wednesday, and the Met Office information and the warnings that had begun fed into its meetings—that is why information was able to go out to people. If we can do more and keep more people safe, we will always do that. That is why we have taken note of the incidents. When it is safe to do so, we will review particular things to see whether we can improve people’s safety even more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Emma Hardy]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, and I noted that she did not mention the National Infrastructure Council’s report, commissioned by the Government a year ago, which stated that an extra 190,000 homes were at risk of flooding—not because of climate change, but because of the Government’s failure to maintain existing flood defence assets. When the Government cannot even get the basics right, how can anyone possibly trust them to have the answers to the ever-increasing flood risk that our country faces?

[Rebecca Pow]

That is exactly the Environment Agency’s duty, and it works very hard on the asset management side of our flood assets, which are a very large proportion of our £5.2 billion fund.