Water Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Parminter and strongly welcome the Government’s proposals on the Flood Re scheme. Getting insurance in high-risk areas is of fundamental importance to the individuals affected; the outcome of the negotiations and planning that have gone into the scheme is very important. All those who have taken part in that should, in my view, be congratulated.

However—I refer here specifically to Amendments 154A and 154B—Flood Re cannot be just about reinsurance: it also has to be about reducing flood risk over time by getting householders who have been flooded and claimed on their insurance and householders who are at high risk to invest in better flood protection. As my noble friend Lady Parminter said, in 25 years’ time we should not be in a position where we have not made any progress in flood protection and end up simply repeating the process. Therefore, Flood Re should not be seen simply as a financial transaction providing a means of reinsuring properties at risk, or deemed to be at risk. We have to go a step further and provide incentives for people to engage proactively in flood risk management. There are clear benefits in this for the insurance industry: better protection will lead to lower total claims. Householders will gain greater security from flooding.

Amendments 156A and 156B—which are intended to be probing amendments—are about the duty of the Flood Re scheme administrator to co-operate with all those bodies that have an existing duty to co-operate under the 2010 Act. It is very important to put this point in the Bill because, as I said, the scheme should not be seen to have just a financial role: it has to be about resilience as well. The introduction of the FR scheme administrator means that strategic interventions can be undertaken. For example, each household in a given high-risk area might be with a different insurance company, so developing strategic solutions involving the insurance industry, which has not so far been possible, now could be. Examples are in data sharing: competition rules have meant that it is not possible to get access to insurance claims data to identify trends in the scale and frequency of flooding. Having this data available through the scheme administrator, alongside public information held by the public agencies and the water companies, could be crucial in making investment decisions to reduce flood risk and, of course, future claims. The FR scheme gives us an opportunity to enable this information to be made available for high-risk areas and we need to make sure it happens as part of this Bill.

My noble friend Lady Parminter referred to the Committee on Climate Change—and we might hear more about that shortly—but the estimate that there could be up to 190,000 homes that could have their flood risks reduced through measures to protect them is a very important factor. Flood Re could be charged with taking a more proactive approach to encouraging and supporting those people in high-risk areas to protect themselves better. As my noble friend Lady Parminter has made clear, there could be systems of loans and investments as well to assist householders.

There is a danger in the proposals in the Bill that people in high-risk areas will simply be satisfied with having secured reinsurance. They might not fully understand the benefits of actually undertaking flood prevention work. They may simply end up accepting the reinsurance at the price they have to pay. There is a further factor that not everybody, even in a high-band property, is cash rich. It could be that, for some, the flood protection works that they would have to undertake would be too costly.

The benefits to the insurance industry of all four of these amendments are clear. It should reduce the level of claims it receives, and therefore the cost of that. There is a major gain for individual householders in that they will be encouraged—and able—to secure greater investment in flood prevention works to their properties. Therefore, I hope that the Minister understands, when he comes to reply, that these four probing amendments are all very positive in their approach in that they build on the excellent work that the Government have done with the insurance industry. However, let us work out ways in which we could do a little more to encourage flood prevention to be undertaken, and that greater resilience, as part of the Flood Re scheme.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, am very interested in this amendment, which has been drawn to the attention of people who live in my former constituency, in particular in the town of Keswick, which noble Lords may recall was the victim of substantial flooding a few years back.

I received a letter from Mrs Lynne Jones, the chair of Keswick Flood Action Group, one of the bodies that was established following the floods some years ago. I will read her letter to the House, because it comes from the front of the battle against flooding, from people on the ground who have to deal with this every day. She writes:

“My particular concern has always been that there is no encouragement or independent advice to reinstate properties in a more flood-resistant, resilient manner after a flood. It can be considered as betterment. Insurance companies have to reinstate properties with insulation which satisfies government legislation, whether there was insulation before or not. However, there is no requirement to consider solid waterproof floors as opposed to floorboards or a rewire from the first floor down, or the many other measures which can make flood recovery that bit less stressful, prolonged and expensive should the worst happen”.

In other words, people on the front line in this battle against flooding are now considering to what extent this scheme can be adapted in a way that incentivises investment not just in the solution of the immediate problem but in remedial measures which can affect claims in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

155A: Clause 51, page 107, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) Within 24 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of the delivery of planning policy in achieving low levels of flood risk for new developments by examining—
(a) the system of planning policy delivery,(b) the role and effectiveness in reducing flood risk of those organisations with a duty to cooperate under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, or their equivalents in the devolved administrations, and(c) the effectiveness of the delivery of the National Flood Management Strategy.”

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, in 2008 when serious flooding hit Northumberland, parts of Newcastle and several parts of the north, and 1,000 people had to be moved out of their homes in Morpeth, it was a major learning exercise for the statutory authorities; that is, the Environment Agency, Northumbrian Water, the local councils and the emergency services in particular. It was a major learning exercise because they had to respond properly and to work well together in the public interest.

In the years leading up to the 2010 Act, I wondered how much of a help that would be in defining the duty to co-operate to make sure that all the agencies involved in dealing with flood and flood risk would manage to work effectively together. In the main, that has happened, although in Somerset it has become unclear whether that duty has worked effectively, given the Environment Agency’s statement that it offered to dredge on the Somerset Levels if other partners joined it. I do not have all the details but I raise the point simply to demonstrate that the duty to co-operate between the agencies matters very much.

This amendment asks for a review within 24 months. Given the changes in flooding patterns around us, we need to be clearer about how the planning and risk management systems are working in practice. The amendment would enable a review of the effectiveness of the delivery of planning policy in achieving lower levels of flood risk for new developments by examining,

“(a) the system of planning policy delivery,

(b) the role and effectiveness in reducing flood risk of those organisations with a duty to co-operate … and

(c) the effectiveness of the delivery of the National Flood Management Strategy”.

It means that we have to confirm, and regularly reconfirm, the capacity and performance of all the organisations involved in reducing flood risk. These will include developers, local government officers and their planning committees, building contractors and building inspectors. We should also look at how national organisations, which have a tendency to be centralised, work effectively with local knowledge, and how that local knowledge is incorporated into the decision-making processes of the national agencies.

I understand that there have been instances where properties built since 2009 have flooded or caused other properties to flood. We need to know better than we do how big a problem this is, how often the flooding was due to flood waters exceeding the risk anticipated, and how often it was due to poor design or poor construction.

I was somewhat concerned to discover that the Environment Agency comments only on larger developments. It is understandable why that is the case, but in 2012-13—here I am quoting from DCLG statistics—local planning authorities received 455,500 planning applications and the Environment Agency provided responses to 30,251 of them; that is, 6.6% of the total. Obviously, most planning applications are small ones in which the Environment Agency need not have a role. However, we need to be clear whether the Environment Agency should have a formal, statutory consultation role in more planning applications than is currently the case. The current position is that the bulk of applications, including those for high surface water flood risk areas, are being dealt with entirely by planning committees and their officers, who follow national guidance. One assumes that they follow that guidance, but it also means that the cumulative impact of many small developments is not commented on and may not be taken into account. There is a further issue. At a time of reducing resources in local government, is everyone confident that all councils have the technical expertise to handle the complex drainage issues that arise? The Government need to be certain that they have all of the evidence they need, and therefore a review within 24 months should be undertaken.

I want to make a last point. I am concerned that we may be being too ambitious for sustainable urban drainage systems schemes. I understand from a press report I read a couple of days ago that 10% of the homes now being built are on flood plains. Of those, 1% to 2% are in high-risk areas. If the right preventive measures are put in place, which can include such schemes, it is not necessarily a problem that 10% of new homes are being built on flood plains. However, an important statement of the obvious is this: SUDS do not work on flood plains when there is substantial flooding. I guess we all know this, but I am concerned that there is a cumulative impact on planning permission for small developments; or, rather, I would like to be convinced that that is not the case. I would like to be certain as well that there is not an overdependence on SUDS schemes being seen as a solution to the problem when they may well not be.

This is a probing amendment, and I hope that the Minister will agree that it is important that, within 24 months, there should be a review of planning policy and flood risk management and delivery, and that two years is really the maximum period within which that should be undertaken, particularly in view of current circumstances. I beg to move.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I intend to use Amendment 155A as a peg for discussing what is described—in paragraph (c) of the new subsection that the amendment would insert into Clause 51—as,

“the effectiveness of the delivery of the National Flood Management Strategy”.

In particular, I want to highlight limitations on the current arrangement under that strategy and how those could be modified. I shall draw on a particular example by praying in aid a particular case.

In 1990, Thames Water proposed a reservoir in Oxfordshire. Its plan set out how the company could meet demand up to the year 2015 for water supply in the south-east of England. Its proposal was for a reservoir on land south-west of Abingdon in the Vale of White Horse. In 2008, some 18 years later, Thames Water held a consultation on its draft water resource management plan for meeting water demand up to 2032. The draft plan again included a proposal for the Abingdon reservoir. If it appears that I am speaking slightly obliquely to the amendment, I am sure that noble Lords will soon recognise the relationship between what I have to say and the amendment on the Marshalled List. In 2009, following a process of consultation, the management plan from Thames Water was amended and the reservoir reduced in size, and in 2010 there was a public inquiry. In March 2011, the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, announced her decision to remove the proposal for a reservoir at Abingdon from the management plan. The reasons were, primarily, that Thames Water could not prove a risk to current water supplies and, secondly, that insufficient consideration had been given to transfer and reuse schemes.

It was argued that water available in other parts of the United Kingdom could be transferred to the south-west of England, although when I was doing a little research on this last week I could not understand how it was impossible to prove that there was not a risk to the water supply in the south-west of England when over a number of years, certainly in the early 2000s, we were being told that reservoirs were empty almost throughout the United Kingdom. There were blocks on the use of water for gardening, and I understand that in some areas there was even talk of introducing standpipes for the water supply. Nevertheless, that was the decision taken at that time by the Secretary of State. I suspect that there was more nimby in the decision than a proper evaluation of water supply and demand. I understand that the next review is due in 2018-19.

Why is all this relevant? To answer that question, we have to move north to Cumbria, to Thirlmere. Thirlmere supplies water to Manchester. Thirlmere is a reservoir above the town of Keswick—where I have lived most of my life—which feeds water from the dam down the Greta river through Keswick, down through Bassenthwaite Lake, down the Derwent and on to Workington, which was the subject of substantial flooding some years ago. After that flood event some years ago, I was asked to set up a group in Keswick to hold discussions with the Environment Agency and United Utilities on what action could be taken to reduce the incidence of flooding in Keswick. Our group’s case was simple: Thirlmere could be used for flood alleviation purposes as well as for water storage. If we retained within Thirlmere sufficient unused water storage capacity, in times of predicted heavy rainfall we could use the reservoir to control the flow of water into the Greta through Keswick and substantially reduce the incidence of flooding in the Keswick area.

In the beginning, United Utilities resisted because it meant the release of its valuable asset—water. However, over time it adopted a more reasonable approach and agreed to reduce the level of the reservoir in the months of high rainfall, primarily in the autumn, winter and early spring. We set target water levels for each month in the meters below the spillover at the head of the reservoir and the dam head. When the reservoir is too full, water is released. Many people in the town believe it has served the town well and avoided substantial flooding over recent years, despite the fact that on occasions they have had trouble releasing sufficient water due to mechanical release valve difficulties.

Let us return to Abingdon and what has happened over the past week in the Thames Valley. I refer again to the interest I declared earlier. Why can we not have a similar arrangement for Abingdon? Why can we not bring back the proposal for a reservoir on the Abingdon site with a dual purpose? The first would be water storage to meet increased demand in the south, and with the proposed development of new towns in the south that is part of the Government’s housing strategy, there will be increased demand—indeed, at the moment demand in drought periods is not being sufficiently met. Secondly, the reservoir could be used for flood alleviation purposes, with target storage levels providing for controlled releases into the River Thames.

Let us go back to the Thames Valley. The communities that have suffered over the past week know that there is no way of resolving their problem in the long term. You cannot build defences along the Thames on the scale necessary to protect the towns and villages—Wraysbury, Datchet, Chertsey, Staines, Sunbury and all those towns; it is impossible. We have to find a solution further up the system. I have raised this in relation to this amendment because I believe that the solution is to create large areas that can be pooled and used for flood alleviation in the future.

It seems to me that to secure that objective, the law needs to be reviewed. We need to strengthen the hand of those who wish to use reservoirs in this way. As I understand the current statute, there is no statutory requirement—a power available to the Environment Agency or to the Government—placed on water companies to use their assets in the way that I suggest. I hope that what I am suggesting today is followed up in the communities that have been affected over the past week by this vast, insuperable problem of flooding, because they need to look long-term as to what the solution is, and the solution is not in flood defences. The solution is upstream. I hope that they follow up my suggestions. In Abingdon there will no doubt be some difficulty over the proposal, but we all have to stand together to find ways to resolve the problem. Unless it is dealt with soon, it will have calamitous implications for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

I hope to get an inspired answer any second in order to be able to tell the noble Lord. If I do not get inspired, I will write to him.

I remind noble Lords that the Environment Agency is already required, under Section 18 of the Flood and Water Management Act, to report on the delivery of the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England. These reports must include information on all sources of flood risk and coastal erosion, and cover the work of all of the relevant accountable authorities. To reassure the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the Environment Agency helps to provide the national overview that he seeks.

My noble friend Lord Shipley suggested that we need to know better whether properties built since 2009 are flooding or making others flood. One of the benefits of the memorandum of understanding between the Government and insurers last year, which I will come on to in the next group, is that for the first time we will have access to claims from flooding. This information will be used by the Environment Agency and its equivalents to target flood risk investment and could be used to inform policy development. In this context, I also note what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said about his data sets. Clearly, the more information we have, the better. I am sure that those data sets will be of interest both to Defra and to the Environment Agency.

Let me see whether I am inspired by the note I have been handed.

Where the outcome is not known, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is talking about, the agency is satisfied that there is no significant difference in the outcomes between those cases reported and those not reported by authorities. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord. It is, of course, important that all these areas continue to be probed, because everybody needs to be reassured that that is, indeed, the case.

Coming back to the assessments that are taking place, high-level reports are produced annually, with more detailed reports provided to coincide with the six-year cycle of the flood risk regulations. Further interim reports may be produced as directed by the Government to support policy decisions such as future government spending reviews. The Government also conduct regular reviews of the effectiveness of policy delivery. For example, a review of the impact of the new partnership approach to flood risk management funding has just concluded. There are also two reviews of flood risk management in progress at the moment and one at a scoping stage. I listened to the comparison by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, of the situations in Abingdon and Keswick. My noble friend Lord Younger, who was in his place a moment ago, noted this with interest and passed me a very interesting comment, but I hear what the noble Lord said and I will make sure that his suggestion is fed through to the relevant authorities.

Coming back to the general reviews, in addition to those I mentioned, my right honourable friend Oliver Letwin MP is leading a review of the lessons learned from the recent flooding, particularly the tidal surge, and the other review is looking at the resilience of key infrastructure to major coastal flooding. Both of these are expected to complete in the spring. Defra is also scoping an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which I hope will reassure my noble friend and which will initially focus on local flood risk management. Under the Act, lead local flood authorities and other risk management authorities have a duty to co-operate with each other, as he noted, to ensure that constructive and active engagement takes place and helps to build local relationships between relevant authorities within and across operational boundaries. We noted what he said about Northumberland and Somerset. Work on this evaluation is anticipated to start later this year. We therefore feel that proposed new paragraphs (b) and (c) of this amendment would duplicate existing planned work.

I hope that my noble friend is reassured by what I have said and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. I shall just take up one question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about whether this concerns only new properties. The amendment refers to new developments but, for the avoidance of any doubt, that includes any building post-2009, not any building purely in the future. I am very grateful for the Minister’s reassurances. We have to think further about what she said, in particular about the role of the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee and the extent to which that might be extended, but I think we could look at that again on Report, when we have had time to consider the points raised in greater detail. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 155A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

160A: After Clause 59, insert the following new Clause—
“Flood reinsurance scheme: eligibility
The FR Scheme should be eligible for all houses built and occupied before its introduction.”

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I said earlier this afternoon that I strongly supported the Flood Re scheme. Again, I thank the Association of British Insurers, individual insurance companies, Defra and Ministers, and congratulate them on their achievement, which is a much needed reform that will give comfort to householders at risk.

However, I want to probe in this amendment the issue of the cut-off date of January 2009 and, in particular, those houses bought before the cut-off at the end of 2008 but not built or occupied until 2009 or after. This amendment uses the date later than 2009, which is simply intended to probe the Government’s intentions. I support a cut-off date—there must be one for the scheme to operate effectively—but the question is whether it must be 1 January 2009 or whether it could be later.

The reason why properties have been excluded from Flood Re from January 2009 is that they were excluded from the 2008 statement of principles. However, I read the Defra briefing, which says that,

“2009 is the most appropriate date based on our current understanding of flood risk”.

Does that imply that the understanding might change because of developments since the statement of principles was established in 2008? This doubt is also important because the proposals in the Bill do not take account of surface water flood risk where information was not publicly available until December 2012, or of changing weather patterns that alter our understanding of what “high risk” is.

The essence of this amendment is: given that houses granted planning permission before 2009 but built afterwards would not covered by Flood Re, there is a case for saying that post-2009 households should be allowed to enter Flood Re where flood risk has genuinely changed since 2009 due to changing weather; where developments are affected by surface water but the risk was not taken into account as it was not understood in 2009; or where contracts had been signed before 2009 but the relevant property was not built until 2009 or later. This amendment tries to address those key questions. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s reasoning on this in his reply. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, we have discussed the substance of Amendment 160B already so I do not propose to move it. However, while I am on my feet, I will comment on Amendment 160A and the terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, moved it. I received a different narrative on this. The circumstances of the post-2009 cut-off, as explained to me, were that that was the time when Planning Policy Statement 25, in relation to construction on flood risk areas, came into being. As the story went, therefore, everybody was on notice that that was an issue, so that was the cut-off point. However, it occurs to me that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised rather an interesting issue.

It is fair to say that the end of summer 2008 was when the wheels came off the banking system and, with it, the property development system. If anybody had a planning consent that he was hoping to implement in 2008, he would have found that there was no money or funding to implement it—nothing would be forthcoming. Many of these schemes were put on ice. Indeed, there was a government recommendation—I do not know if you can call it an instruction—to the local planning authorities that they should look favourably on extending the three-year life of these. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, detailed planning consent has a three-year life, so it would have run out and would have had to be reapplied for. Due to the circumstances of having to reapply—maybe there are a new lot of regulations and so on—you can run into a whole raft of cost, time and delay.

The idea was that those things should be perpetuated, and with very good reason. They underpinned balance sheets, loans and all sorts of things. If they were to be effectively prejudiced by the loss of a planning consent, so that you had a property with either no verifiable development value or a lower development value, that had repercussions for precisely the sort of reasons I outlined earlier this afternoon in another context. So it is perfectly possible that a planning consent that was negotiated on the basis of rules in 2006 or 2007 would not have got going by the end of 2008 or 2009, and would have had to be preserved. The houses would not have been constructed until some time later, but the circumstances relating to that consent would have related to the antecedent circumstances at the time of granting of planning consent. I can see that there is an issue here.

I am always a bit frightened by development land values anywhere. I am even more frightened when things go wrong and people start reaching for their lawyers. What are they going to start looking at? Will they say, “The house is now constructed, it was built on what might be called an old technology basis pre-2008, and, lo and behold, it has flooded”? If they are excluded, it may have a material effect on the value. Who will they look to for recompense—the local authority or the fact that Planning Policy Statement 25 did not apply, or should have applied in some other form? This makes me think of the time-honoured American superfund arrangements, where most of the money went not to environmental clean-up but into the pockets of lawyers trying to attach liability. I do not wish to see that sort of thing happening here. Some careful thought has to go into the date and where the cut-off should be. I know it is not easy. I am happy to believe that the account of the reasons and circumstances given by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is the correct one, but I am slightly surprised that it seems to be a little at variance with the one that I have. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

If I may, I will include that in that consideration. I hope that my explanations have provided some helpful reassurance. I am happy to ask my officials to work with the ABI to set out the proposed scope of Flood Re in more detail before Report, as that is something noble Lords have asked for. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. A Written Statement would also be helpful as we move towards Report. I should like to pursue two points briefly. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that there is more than one narrative but the outcome is the same. The issue is whether the understanding of flood risk that was apparently correct in 2008 and 2009 is still correct in 2014. I suspect that it is not, which is why I am concerned. It would be helpful if the Minister’s note that he will send before Report could inform us whether it is still correct.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that we should not include in the provision those who had continued to build on high-risk flood plains after 2009. I entirely agree with him, but that was not the point I was making. My point was slightly different—namely, that I think the definition of what is high risk is now changing around us. Therefore, people who bought in good faith properties which were not in a high-risk area may now find that they are living in a high-risk area as a consequence of climate change, changing weather patterns and so on.

We have had an interesting debate. The issues have been identified and we can consider them further prior to Report. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 160B (to Amendment 160A) not moved.