Flooding: Rural Communities

George Freeman Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is at risk of stealing my sandwiches, but I will get there shortly. He is right, particularly when it comes to farmers; too often they are overlooked and they need support.

The issues that I hear about at my flooding summits are that local authorities are too often silent when asked for help, and that riparian owners are not taking their duties as seriously as they should—dredging goes undone and drains go uncleared—and when people from Rutland ask the Government for support, we are told that we do not qualify. The reason for that is a simple number: 50. To access the flooding recovery framework, 50 houses must flood. Below that line, there is no support; above that line, here comes the cavalry.

For Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, which I also serve, 50 flooded houses is sadly an achievable and often exceeded threshold, but because Rutland is the smallest county—we have just 41,000 residents—we almost never hit 50 flooded homes, thankfully. We must remember the 30 houses that were badly damaged in Greatford in Lincolnshire, which I serve. If it had been the only village in Lincolnshire to flood, it would have had no support, despite people having to be evacuated by boat and being besieged. There is something deeply wrong with a framework so rigid that those in need of help do not or might not receive support.

I raised this objection in the last Parliament, and my Government then listened. The Conservative Government made sure that in 2024, for the first time ever, Rutland could access the flood recovery grant. I ask the Government to make those changes permanent ahead of the next big floods this year. Surely support should be based on the percentage of the population affected or just those who are the most affected, and accessing this funding would make an enormous difference.

I also ask the Minister to ensure that she provides support for farmers. In the village of Tixover in my community, for example, farmers have had to spend up to £80,000 this year buying food for their sheep, which would otherwise just graze off the grass, because they cannot access their land because it is so flooded.

We talk about flood risk in terms of physical damage, infrastructure and recovery time, but there is a financial dimension to this issue that is devastating households. That is the insurance market. For families in flood-risk areas, insurance premiums are eye-watering where they are available at all, so families have to cover the risk themselves; they hope that this year, the storm will pass, the river will hold or the drain will cope, but it never quite does. A family living in fear of flooding is living in fear, not just of water, but of the bill that comes in the post. Flood Re was a vital reinsurance scheme established by the last Government, but homes built since 2009 are not covered, and that scheme’s remit will end in 2030, leaving people stuck. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on the Government’s thinking on this matter.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point of insurance, I have just come from chairing a meeting with Aviva—a great Norfolk insurer, the biggest insurer of houses in the country. It made the point to me that this is the tip of a major iceberg of uninsureability, unmortgageability and then unsaleability, and that the Treasury should be looking at this as a major problem on the balance sheet of this country. It is a Horizon Post Office-sized scandal in its scale, risking serious economic damage to our economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that elevates this issue to one of national importance?

[Alicia Kearns]

I was not aware of just how drastic insurers see the situation, but it does not surprise me, based on what I see in my communities. I know that my hon. Friend has worked consistently on the issue of flooding, so I take him at his word that we need to be looking at that problem more seriously.

Turning to dredging, the Environment Agency consistently argues that we should not be dredging its man-made assets, but that position is not supported by landowners and farmers, who are the custodians of our land and understand it. It can restore natural water flow, support better drainage and remove debris. It should be an option, as should removing vegetation from EA assets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I will not make this about Somerset, I promise, but we had a very good conversation with the Environment Agency, the internal drainage boards and members of the council during that visit. We talked about the use of temporary pumps when a threshold is met, and discussed whether the threshold needs to be re-evaluated. Some really positive work is being done, with people looking into what has happened and what needs to be done. I hope that we shall be able to say a bit more about that in the coming weeks, but it was a very useful conversation. There was a willingness around the table to think about how we could get it right in an area that is very difficult and challenging to deal with because it is so flat, and relies so much on the use of pumps to move water around. The question of maintenance was discussed as well.

I want to acknowledge the vital work of local authorities, emergency services, members of the internal drainage boards, the voluntary community, the faith sector, and others who responded to the floods in Somerset, Dorset and other locations. The good news is that 24,500 properties were protected by the Environment Agency, but that, of course, is little consolation for the people whose properties were flooded. I also want to express my personal sympathies to all those who have been affected.

On Monday we held our sixth meeting of floods resilience taskforce, which is a fantastic group that brings everyone together. It includes the internal drainage boards, but also the Association of British Insurers, Flood Re and the flood action groups, which bring lived experience of flooding to the conversations. We bring everyone together for the flood action groups, and then there are task groups who go off and do work between the big meetings, such as looking at the experience of people from the point at which their properties have been flooded to the point at which they return to their properties. One of the questions that I want to ask is, “Where are the pain points along the way, and where are the difficulties?”

Once this is all set up and official, I should like all Members to feed in their experiences so we can identify the difficult points. I had a great conversation with Aviva last Thursday when I went to visit a house that had been improved through Build Back Better. Those people had had a wonderful experience, following the devastating thing that had happened, but we know that that is not universal.

[George Freeman]

The Minister has mentioned Aviva, one of Norfolk’s great companies and the biggest insurer of houses in the country. Has she seen its recent report, in which it calculates that about 4.78 million houses are at serious risk of flooding over the next 10 years? I congratulate he on securing the funding in the autumn, which I think was going to protect 60,000 houses, but does she agree that the Treasury should be thinking very deeply about the scale of this challenge in the context of national resilience?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Member prompts me to mention the biggest ever, greatest, most fantastic and largest investment in flood defences that this Government have just announced. On a more serious note, yes, Aviva did talk to me about that report, as he would imagine. We had a conversation about it and, without straying too much out of my remit and into planning, I believe that such conversations are ongoing with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.