Flooding: Rural Communities

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Lilian Greenwood.)

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.

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.

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech and has taken a huge number of interventions, for which I thank her. When it comes to development, flood management strategies are not taking into account the run-off that additional development will cause; for example, the upper Severn catchment management scheme is looking at opportunities to store water, but not at risks from additional development. We know that the drainage arrangements that are put in place, such as attenuation ponds, are often not maintained into the future. Does the hon. Member agree that we need a better plan for making sure that when development happens, the run-off does not affect the existing residents?

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.