PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Flooding: Rural Communities - 18 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. Water has no respect for property. It has no regard for a family’s memories or for a business’s survival. It rises where it will, and for too many in our communities across Rutland, Harborough and the South Kesteven villages, it rises again and again. In Whissendine, the White Lion pub flooded four times in 2024 alone. The water was so deep in the village that people water-skied, although of course I cannot condone that. The pub’s damage was so severe and so repeated that the insurers, the very people paid to be there when it matters most, walked away. Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who have spent years running the pub, were left to face the consequences alone. A home, a livelihood and a community hub were all under threat.

Sometimes the barriers to getting things done leave me quite bereft. In Whissendine, the simple installation of a depth gauge would make a big difference to preventing cars from driving through when the roads are flooded and yet, for the life of me, I cannot get anyone to fund it or agree to it. In Langham, the same homes have flooded every single year since 2024, and properties that barely saw a drop of water in the years before now face a deluge, which often comes through their doors as lorries drive belligerently through our flooded streets when they should know better. However, no one stops them because the council repeatedly fails to put up signs shutting the road. I believe that residents should be empowered to put up signs themselves, in co-ordination with local flood response leads. Residents are spending thousands of pounds on flood defences, and not because they want to but because they have to.

In Tallington, a storm left the sewage system and residents without working toilets or showers. Thankfully, by supporting Philip Sagar and Tallington parish council, we have secured and completed works on the culvert under the railway, which was incredibly difficult to negotiate, and more is planned. We also have Thurnby brook, which flooded in 2024 and 2025 following the storms, and the impact is still felt today. There is the beautiful Braceborough, which suffered horrendously.

There is Greatford, where I was left at 9 o’clock at night ringing the circus—the real circus; it was Pinder’s circus from Rutland, which was in Hungary at the time—and begging it to help me find portaloos for the village. When Storm Henk struck, the village did not flood; it was engulfed. Some people had to be rescued by boats, and people spent nights in rescue centres. When the waters finally receded, a third of all homes had been severely damaged, and many people could not return home for well over a year.

These residents can easily be statistics, but we all know that each of them is a family with their own story. These are the same communities that are about to have a 1,300-acre solar plant imposed on flood plains right next to their homes. Flooding is not unique to my patch, and I am not trying to claim a monopoly on hardship, but I am here to advocate for solutions.

I will gently say to Members that, as much as I love to have an audience for my Adjournment debate, we must recognise that I need to get through everything. I will give way quickly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Constituents of mine in Moorland and Fordgate live under the constant threat of flooding. This winter they have been very grateful to the frontline workers from the internal drainage board, the council and the Environment Agency for helping them out. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those frontline workers?

I will happily pay tribute. In fact, that gives me a great opportunity to mention Ben Thornely, who is our local Environment Agency officer. It does not matter when I call him or whether it is an emergency or proactively trying to make our communities safer, he always takes the call, and he has been out to see our communities whenever I ask. There are people in the system who work incredibly hard, and this is a great opportunity to thank them.

Every year I hold flooding summits across the three counties I serve, and every year the story is the same.

I commend the hon. Lady; she is an assiduous MP and constituency worker, and we all recognise her efforts in this Chamber. Does she agree that the smaller numbers of people living in rural areas can sometimes skew the cost-benefit analysis? The Department must take each request based not on how many people live in an area and are affected, but on the bigger schemes to help the householders. I gently say that it should also enable farmland to carry out agricultural purposes that are essential for food security for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

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.

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?

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.

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that in many cases this is about removing vegetation, but it might also be about removing debris, such as old shopping trollies and other things that could block a much-loved waterway and cause flooding and further accumulation of debris? That is part of the problem. Does she also agree that landowners have a responsibility? There is great variation in the way they manage their land next to rivers.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—riparian ownership is a repeated issue in my community. It is also devastating to hear that he has things like shopping trollies in his waterways; we are very fortunate, in that we have so many local groups who go out and drag anything like that out of our waterways, although it is very rare. We need action to get those issues resolved.

I also commend my hon. Friend for raising this hugely important topic, and she is right to highlight the importance of local voices. Local voices know best where the flood risks are. They are most at risk and have real skin in the game, but they often feel that bodies such as Natural England and some parts of the Environment Agency are not responding. There are also the internal drainage boards, particularly in the east of England—in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see more from the current Government about how they are going to work proactively with the drainage boards, particularly on some of the capital funding requirements that they face?

I am in quite an unenviable position, in that only some of my constituency is covered by an internal drainage board, but that capital is absolutely fundamental. I am sure the Minister has heard my right hon. Friend’s intervention and will be able to reflect that in her speech—I was going to ask about that issue, but I no longer need to do that, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

I want to touch briefly on flood alleviation schemes. We need strategies to store water better, because we are moving from droughts to floods and back to droughts. Water resilience and water security should be treated with equal importance to food security.

Turning to planning and development, the Government plan significantly—and, in my view, disproportionately—to increase the number of homes built in rural areas. All the cities around me have seen significant reductions in how many houses they have to build, while each of my areas has seen an increase in what is expected of over 100%, despite our consistently over-delivering on the targets previously set. Planning and development have to be done responsibly, and I fear that so much of the building is going to be on floodplains, or on the outskirts of small villages whose drainage has only just kept up with modern-day life and modern times. Those villages will find their infrastructure overrun by these additional housing pressures.

Run-off has unfortunately been a real problem. I have only three towns in my constituency. They are not substantial, but Oakham in particular has seen a real issue with run-off, and that is all from new properties. It needs to be dealt with, and it speaks to the need for incentives and sticks. New fiduciary financial liabilities would make clear to developers that if they build new homes and in the short term—between the following five to 15 years—there is a significant increase in flooding that was not previously occurring, they should be liable for action to build additional flood prevention aids or to upgrade the flood defences or drains they originally built. That brings me to the planning process, where it would be sensible if water companies became statutory consultees.

Turning to local councils, a couple of years ago we Conservatives had to force the first ever special meeting in the history of Rutland county council, because the council was not responding on flooding and was insisting that those who had to move out of their homes would have to pay council tax on both their original property and the one they were renting. The council’s long overdue section 19 flooding report has finally been published, but it had little about what the council would do to protect us in the future. Instead, it focused on telling us all what the problems are. First, we already knew that, and secondly, it took the council pretty much 18 months from the first flood to report, and we had already had a second flood in the meantime. We all know our communities and we know what the issues are.

A statutory limit on how long section 19 reports can take is necessary, but councils should also have to go beyond just setting out the problem and lay out the solutions that are needed. Will the Government do that, and will they mandate that those who have had to move out of their homes due to flooding should be protected from the cost of covering council tax on two properties? Frankly, I am tired of having that fight with my local councils every time we have significant flooding.

I will touch on some of the flooding heroes in our communities. Phil Britton and the entire Greatford parish council and flood warden team rebuilt and recovered in the most extraordinary way. They have gone on to be determined to help other communities to protect themselves better. It is so beautiful to see them wanting to share their expertise and plans with others. Richard Besant, chair of Langham parish council, has advocated and pushed relentlessly on behalf of his village. I mentioned Philip Sagar, the chair of Tallington parish council, who has been a persistent and principled voice for residents who have been facing avoidable misery. I also touched on Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who fought not only for their own pub in Whissendine, but for the entire community when others frankly would have given up and hidden in a hole.

Those are just some of the people who have held our communities together, and they are remarkable, and I am so proud to represent them. There are more who I wish I could name who have stepped up. It should not be left to those who care passionately to improve our flood defences or respond in an emergency. It should not be councillors, such as Kiloran Heckels or Karen Payne, who find themselves out in the dark trying to get to the bottom of things. In Whitwell, we literally had people putting on scuba gear, diving down to the bottom of the water—that is how deep it was—to try to get things out of the drains to get the water moving. It also should not be left to farmers, who are often our first responders and flood wardens, to stand in the breach because the authorities simply have not responded.

Let me be clear about what I am asking. I am disappointed that our communities have been excluded from the flood funds that were announced overnight, and I would be grateful if the Government revisited that decision. I cannot believe that we are not some of the worst affected communities in the country, not least from the conversations I have had with the Environment Agency. The Government should do more to support local flood resilience groups because, as we discussed earlier, our communities know what is best for them. We know where the flooding has happened, for how long and when there are new patterns.

On insurance, the Flood Re scheme must be updated. Can section 19 reports please have far more of a focus on action and a time limit? We need to end double council tax for victims of flooding and challenge the existing orthodoxy on dredging that is letting our communities down. On developers, we need financial liabilities to ensure that developers who build new homes tackle flooding pre-emptively or are held to account when they have not done so sufficiently. We need water companies to become statutory consultees in the planning process. Finally, as I have touched on, I want the Government to review the flooding recovery framework and in particular the 50-house threshold. As it stands, it systematically excludes my communities that are incredibly vulnerable.

In conclusion, the heavy rains will come again, and I fear they will come far too soon, and our communities cannot face this challenge alone. I have touched on some of the villages that have suffered flooding, but we have had it in Whitwell, Whissendine, Careby, including Careby’s beautiful church, Creeton, Edenham, Braceborough, Ashwell, Stretton, Glooston, Lyddington, Stonton Wyvill, Langham, Tugby, Tallington, Greatford and Barleythorpe Brooke. Those are all in the last two years, and there are far more who have suffered.

Rural communities deserve protection and recovery should not depend on population density and protections for those who can afford the premium. I suspect that these are principles that command support throughout the Chamber, regardless of political alliance, but principles unmatched by policy are just words, and I believe that we in our villages deserve much more than words. This really is one of our foremost concerns and priorities.

I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the points that I have raised, and she is very welcome to come to my next flooding summit. I will bring three counties together if necessary, which may be a shock to their systems, but we would do it if she were willing to come and have those discussions. I look forward very much to hearing her response this evening.

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for initiating it, and for giving me an opportunity to outline the steps that the Government are taking to reduce flood risk and strengthen resilience in rural communities.

We began 2026 with record levels of rainfall in some parts of the country. Following Storm Chandra, I visited Somerset on 10 February with a Conservative Member, and witnessed the devastating impacts of flooding at first hand when one of the farmers took me in his tractor to see what had happened. What I saw could be described as flooding, but his farmland was basically under a lake. We had a good and helpful conversation about it, and I was particularly struck by what he said about the extra things that he did to support his community, in the way that the hon. Lady described. The farmers were there, helping people to go to the shops or to pick up their post. They were providing that additional service because they care about the communities of which they are part.

I was grateful for the Minister’s visit to Somerset, but does she accept that when the Environment Agency announces that it is withdrawing from main river maintenance and will stop dredging the River Parrett, that is exactly the sort of action that contributes to the devastating flooding that she witnessed?

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.

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?

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.

The Minister invited hon. Members to present pain points, so perhaps I can share one from my time in her Department. Natural England’s gold-plating of some of its statutory objectives often seemed at odds with the ministerial steers that were given. Does she feel she has sufficient control over the direction of Natural England in delivering the sort of actions that I am sure she discussed at the taskforce?

I would not want to advise the right hon. Gentleman, but I think hearts and minds is always a good way to win things in the Department. I do feel confident. There is a conversation about dredging, and the question of whether it is appropriate often comes up. When I have conversations with those from the Environment Agency, their response to me is, “It depends.” It depends on the river, it depends on where the flooding is, and it depends whether we want to move something quickly. Certainly, from everything they have told me, there is not a set policy against something; they just want to do what is best in the area. Of course, if hon. Members have examples that they want me to follow up, I am happy to hear them.

We are still waiting for delivery of the River Thames scheme in my area. While that is happening, we would be very grateful for some dredging, because at the moment there is no River Thames flood alleviation scheme. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reconfirm the Government’s commitment to delivering the River Thames scheme, which affects my constituency but also the neighbouring constituency of Spelthorne?

Actually, I had a conversation about the hon. Gentleman earlier on. In my meeting with him, we spoke about the local response to the flooding, and about how we can bring things together when it does not meet the level of the local resilience forum. I acknowledge that he had really interesting ideas about how recovery can operate at a local level, so I might invite him to send those in to me when we look at those pain points.

Earlier today, from 5.30 to 6.30 pm—I am losing track of time—the Environment Agency had a drop-in session in the House. It invited all Members to go in and have conversations about what is happening with their schemes this year. There is a record amount of money, which is fantastic news, so this is a massive build year. There is so much capital spend and so many things being built this year. Quite a bit of money is also going into the development of future projects. I apologise that I do not have the hon. Gentleman’s scheme in front of me, but he should ask the Environment Agency where it is with the scheme. No projects have been cancelled; they are either in development or are being built, so it is probably best to have that conversation with the EA.

I will get back to the questions that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford asked.

The Minister is making an excellent speech, but perhaps she would like to say a little bit about the importance of measures further upstream to protect my residents, and indeed those of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), in the River Thames catchment. It is obviously a huge catchment, and there are significant tributaries such as the Kennet, the Loddon and many others. In the past, she has referred to her interest in rewilding to manage the flood waters as they come down through the Thames, and in particular considering vegetation near rivers and various other measures to try to slow the flow of water.

It would not be a flooding debate without my hon. Friend’s contributions. I know how much he cares about both restoring nature and doing what he can to alleviate flooding. The new formula, which kicks in on 1 April, puts greater emphasis on natural flood management and how we can increase the number of nature-based solutions to flooding, where appropriate. That is absolutely something that I want to achieve, because not only is it more affordable and good for nature, but it can help alleviate flooding. That is of course part of the wider picture, and I thank him.

As in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), one of the impacts in Leicestershire has been the sheer volume of water, and the villages in rural parts of Leicestershire have just felt left behind when it comes to money. I am grateful that Diseworth was selected this time round, but I would be really grateful to hear the Minister’s view about the impact on rural communities and how work can be done to make sure that rural communities do not feel left behind by flood works.

That is absolutely at the forefront of my mind. Having been to see some of the farmers this year and before the election, and having had those conversations, I am actively looking at what would be a good solution to support our rural communities, bearing in mind the comment that although there may be fewer properties, that does not lessen the impact.

For the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, the EA is developing a new hydraulic model and hydrology for the catchment to provide further information and a foundation for future flood risk management in the area. It would probably be helpful if the EA reached out to have a conversation with her to explain that in detail.

Just yesterday, we announced a £1.4 billion investment in flooding in 2026-27, which will help to protect tens of thousands of homes and businesses, and funding for more than 600 flood schemes across the country, including upgraded barriers, embankments and natural flood management projects that slow the flow, of which I am a huge fan. It includes £5.5 million for the lower risk debris screens project that will increase flood resilience in the hon. Member’s constituency and other Members’ constituencies, as part of wider investment across the east midlands. More than £260 million will be spent managing, maintaining and repairing EA assets, including those damaged by Storm Goretti and Storm Chandra, ensuring that vital protections remain strong when communities need them most. The investment forms part of the largest flood defence programme in English history, with at least £10.5 billion invested between 2024 and 2036 to protect homes, businesses and critical infrastructure in every corner of the country from the growing threat of flooding.

I am very happy to take away the question on how quickly section 19 reports are done. I am always mindful of how hard-working our local councillors are. They need to do something well and in a timely way, and there can be a tension between the two, but is important that section 19 reports are completed as quickly as possible, so that we can really understand what has happened and hopefully do something to mitigate it in future.

On the point the hon. Lady made about council tax, I will have to take that to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The Minister has been very generous with interventions. We are about to run out the clock. There were a few more questions and I would be very grateful if she would write to me on them. I know how diligently she fulfils her brief and I am really grateful to her for that, but it would be great to have answers to all the wider points I raised as well.

I am very happy to do that. Apologies; I normally listen out for the coughing that comes—[Interruption.] And there we have it!

In conclusion, the Government are committed to strengthening resilience to flooding. That not only keeps people safe, but supports economic growth in our rural and local communities across the country. By protecting businesses, reducing disruption and safeguarding jobs, these measures contribute to stability and growth in the face of increasing climate change and flood risk. The Government’s record investment in flood defences will benefit communities across the country.

Question put and agreed to.