Flood Re Insurance Scheme

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[John Stevenson]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Flood Re has been a success. I have seen that in my constituency, where people now have confidence that their house will be insured. What I am trying to get at is a small group of people. In the setting I mentioned earlier, 29 houses were involved and in another scheme in Carlisle there are, I think, 68, but there will not be many other than those. I suspect that there will not be too many in such circumstances in the flood areas up and down the country, so most people will be able to get the appropriate cover, which, as she rightly says, is a positive.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. I, too, congratulate him on this important debate, which will be welcomed by his constituents and by everybody who has been seriously affected by flooding. Has he examined the proposal recently launched by the British Insurance Brokers Association that is intended for commercial properties and which I understand will also cover long lets? Is there not a danger, though, that because premiums are calculated on specifically targeted risk, they might end up as unaffordable for people in long-lease properties?

[John Stevenson]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I am aware of the proposal with regards to commercial properties, which may be a way forward for them. I have concentrated on a narrow point with regards to the circumstances surrounding Flood Re.

To conclude, will the Minister bring forward a constructive review of Flood Re? Will she consult Flood Re and the insurance industry? Will she listen to the concerns of homeowners in my constituency who genuinely feel that they are being let down by the legislation and are unable to get that security and insurance for flood? It is an ongoing concern for them that if we get another Storm Desmond, they will not necessarily have the money to refurbish their properties. I do not think that is the intention of the legislation. I hope the Minister will take on board the arguments that I have set out about the legislation and will acknowledge that there was an oversight, or that something was missed when it was considered, and that it would be appropriate to bring forward primary or secondary legislation to expand Flood Re to cover that small group. That would assist a small group of people in my constituency, but it would be hugely beneficial and give them confidence for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I intend to address that issue towards the end of my contribution. If I do not manage to do so in sufficient detail for my hon. Friend, I will be happy to have further discussions.

I stress that Floor Re is a transitional measure. It was designed with a 25-year lifetime to help householders at high flood risk to adapt to risk-reflective pricing. That sets the challenge of how collectively as a country we can bring down the risk and impact of flooding over the next 23 years. The Government are spending record amounts on flood defences, with a £2.5 billion six-year capital floods programme, which will provide better protection for at least 300,000 homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) will be aware of some of the protections, and I know that he is pressing for more for his constituents.

There is a growing understanding that, regardless of our significant investment in flood defences, a residual risk of flooding remains. Flood defences are not always appropriate, and where they are we have seen that they can be overtopped in extreme events, as happened a year ago. We need to work across the whole catchment area to slow the flow of water through natural flood management and to prepare for any flooding that does occur. As well as ensuring we have a first-class emergency response to flood events, there is much we can do to adapt our homes and businesses to become more resilient.

Only last week, I visited Warrington and saw at first hand a new flood defence scheme at Victoria park where work is still in progress. Back in 2013 and within two weeks of the first phase being built, the scheme prevented 200 properties from being flooded. That was fantastic for the residents, but reminds me of the need to help people to understand the residual flood risk that inevitably remains. It is important to take measures to try to stop water entering a property and to speed recovery. Returning home is increasingly important and relatively simple steps can make a big difference—for example, flood resistant air-bricks; raising sockets; and using tiles instead of carpet. Property-level resilience can play a significant role in making people and their property less vulnerable to the physical and mental impacts of flooding.

A few months ago, we published the Bonfield property flood resilience action plan in collaboration with the commercial sector. It explores how collectively business and Government can best enable and encourage better uptake of such measures for properties, including businesses, at high flood risk.

Turning to leaseholds, particularly long leaseholds, I have commissioned my officials to look at the nature and extent of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle described, as we need to look at them in more detail. He will be aware of the wider issue of small leasehold property, to which he referred. The insurance industry regularly informs us that for, the most part, affordable commercial insurance and contents insurance for individual leaseholders is available through Flood Re, but there are examples of individuals and leasehold properties with more than three residential units struggling to access affordable business insurance. Likewise, there are examples of residential buy-to-let properties not being covered and owners finding it difficult to obtain insurance.

Evidence is building and the challenge is not easy. Much consideration was given during the creation of Flood Re to whether to include leasehold properties. From a practical perspective, insurers determine whether an individual property is at high flood risk on a household-by-household basis and can allocate the cost using a simple domestic insurance model. For leasehold properties, buildings insurance will often cover numerous dwellings, which may well have different levels of flood risk. It would be difficult to establish a consistently fair approach to how lessees should cover that risk.

There are also considerations of principle. With Flood Re, when the insurer has a direct relationship with the homeowner, the competitive market gives us confidence that the benefits provided by the scheme will reach the households for which it is intended. It is not clear that a similar scheme for leasehold properties would achieve this.

I have been saying for some time that there is good news. I am very pleased that yesterday the British Insurance Brokers Association announced the launch of a new commercial product designed to help small businesses at high flood risk to access affordable insurance. The scheme will also be open to leasehold properties. It will no doubt help some, and I hope it will help the vast majority of those who are struggling. On tenement housing in Scotland I was not aware of the difference in application, and I will certainly ask my officials to add to that. Should there prove to be a need for additional action, I remain open to exploring what can and should be done.

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) said and I am happy to explore it further. There is a similar challenge, in that that is not quite as straightforward as individuals’ domestic dwellings, but let us look at it and see.

Flood Re is not a panacea. There is no evidence of a systemic problem, but I recognise that there is a real problem for the individuals, businesses and communities involved. I am particularly concerned about smaller businesses that cannot easily move premises. I hope that using granular postcode data and recognising the benefit of property level resilience measures, the new products from insurers—as of next week, I believe—will enable more small businesses to obtain affordable insurance.

In parallel, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working to understand the nature and extent of the problem. I thank the hon. Members who have shared examples with me and encourage businesses to work with us to help the Government to have a more comprehensive picture of the challenges that they face. Where there is a clear need for further action, the solutions are varied. Extending Flood Re to cover businesses is not possible, because the scheme is predicated on a domestic rather than commercial insurance model. Equally significant is the question of who pays to subsidise profit-making businesses, which are often more able to move premises than households.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle asked about Flood Re and the ongoing concern. Flood Re will be reviewed every five years. It needs to be given time to work, but there are separate policy questions that we need to look at with regard to scope. Flood Re will continue to interpret legislation and I assure hon. Members that we are in regular contact on it.

People should be aware that Flood Re does not extend to properties built during or after 2009. Planning law means that properties built in a high flood-risk area should already be resilient to flooding. Extending Flood Re to cover these properties would only incentivise unsuitable development. That is why we have not done that.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister, as part of her ongoing review, review the level of premiums that are charged under the British Insurance Brokers Association scheme in relation both to leasehold properties and to those of small businesses? The danger of a finely targeted, granular approach is that some may find the risk premium unaffordable.

Flooding

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

We have put in some additional money ready for those precise circumstances. One of our concerns was about the riverbanks. Having looked carefully at the situation, and having had people in from the Netherlands to look at it, it seems as though they are in a very good condition. As for the condition of the road, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, when it has been submerged for some time, the problem is not just potholes but the surface rising. We will be looking at that, because it is clearly of national importance to see it back in operation as quickly as possible.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Will the Government complete a proper assessment of the economic impact of the flooding as well as, of course, the awful impact on people? Only through such an assessment can proper evaluation be made of schemes such as the western relief channel for Oxford, which is the only practical means of reducing the flooding there, which the Secretary of State came to see for himself.

[Mr Pickles]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. I went to look at the possibilities there and was well and truly lobbied. I have reason to be very grateful to firefighters who came up with a way of keeping the roads open with a very inventive use of high-volume hoses.

Fly-Grazing of Horses

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

It is indeed a recurring problem. I know that the presence of uniformed police on these occasions often helps, but people worry about intimidation a great deal.

If the horses do not miraculously disappear just before the two-week period is up and no one comes forward to claim them, the only option for the local authority is to auction them—but, of course, if a horse is to be put up for auction it must first be properly documented and microchipped. There is another situation that I think hon. Members will recognise. The horses go to auction but are often bought back by the same person who was responsible for abandoning them in the first place. Afterwards, of course, they have acquired a more valuable animal, because it has been microchipped at a low price.

The scale of the problem of fly-grazing is both large and growing. No one knows exactly even how many horses there are in the country, let alone how many are neglected, abandoned or fly-grazed.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I assure him that concern about this issue is not confined to rural areas; I have been struck by the number of my constituents who have contacted me about it.

Is not the need for a national strategy underlined by the fact that a piecemeal postcode lottery approach will ensure, in the end, that those who abuse animals in this way simply move them from the areas that are taking action to the areas that are not prepared to take action—a problem exacerbated by the action being taken in Wales? Does not every area need to be prepared to deal with the problem?

[Damian Hinds]

Indeed. I think that is one of the themes that we will hear a number of times during this short debate.

Best estimates suggest that perhaps 7,000 horses are at risk of welfare problems, with upwards of 3,000 on land without consent. In the year to date in my own county of Hampshire, the RSPCA has received calls about 14 incidents of fly-grazing; in the first quarter of 2013, the British Horse Society saw complaints about horse welfare go up by 50% on the prior year.

Flood Insurance

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention and I think that he is on point. We need a comprehensive deal covering all aspects of the insurance premium.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will not, because I need to make progress and, under the strictures of Mr Deputy Speaker, I will need to give way later.

The “Flood Re” insurance scheme would create a non-profit fund to ensure that cover is available for the 2% of homes that are at significant risk of flooding. Like the current system, the model would be based on cross-subsidisation. High-risk home owners would pay higher premiums, subject to a cap, and benefit from a subsidy levied on lower risk properties. Today that subsidy costs the average property owner about £8 a year—that is the proportion of the insurance premium that they pay. Under “Flood Re” that would rise by an estimated £1. Those owning a band A property at significant risk of flooding would see a 15% increase in their premium, rising to 43% for more expensive homes. The point of the scheme, therefore, is to cushion the most vulnerable. In return, the insurance industry wants the Government to strengthen flood defences, provide access to flood risk assessments and enforce planning regulation on floodplains more rigorously.

The parameters of a balanced deal are emerging. Ministers have, understandably, refused to sign any blank cheques, including for bankrolling “Flood Re” or for providing a temporary overdraft facility underwritten by the taxpayer. That would be difficult to justify at any time, but especially with our public finances under such acute strain.

[Mr Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I strongly support the motion and congratulate him on securing the debate. Is it not important to bear it in mind that the insurance companies do not have a completely free hand in this, because they are required by state regulators to secure reinsurance on the risk that they take on? Unless there is some Government participation to cap that risk, it will be impossible to get it at an affordable price and the disaster that our constituents are threatened with will happen.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has touched on some of the technical aspects, to which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), will respond. It is clear that the state needs to be involved in this. This cannot be left solely to a free market. Even a free-market MP like me would accept that.

It would be useful if Ministers could today explain their position on the gist of the “Flood Re” proposal, and any concerns they have now that the taxpayer is not being asked to underwrite the overdraft facility. One key issue is the balance of contributions by those owning properties at higher risk and ordinary insurance holders. Have Ministers considered the composition of the board of governors of the fund, and in particular the number and character of members who are independent of both the Government and the industry? How will the Government retain control and accountability over future increases in either the levy or ordinary premiums? Both aspects are important; it is a question of balance.

The “Flood Re” scheme inevitably invites comparison with models used elsewhere. In the United States, the national flood insurance programme is not funded on the basis of cross-subsidisation, but as a result was left $17 billion in the red after Hurricane Katrina. “Flood Re” as a model would avoid a situation in which the British taxpayer covers all losses the market will not insure—the Dutch Government have such a commitment. The “Flood Re” model is somewhere between the US and Dutch models.

Alternative models have been proposed but are not in the negotiating mix between the ABI and the Government at this stage. One alternative presented by Marsh, the insurance broker, would involve mutualisation of 50% of flood claims among all home owners. That would pass back to home owners or the Government the risk of paying the remaining 50% of flood claims. What view have Ministers taken on that alternative?

More broadly, the negotiations on flood insurance shed broader light on the UK’s wider environmental policy. The risks of flooding, which is effectively what we are debating, prompt a simple question: have we got our environmental priorities right? Met Office data show that four of the five wettest years on record have occurred since 2000. The Government’s chief scientist has warned that

“in quite a short time scale…we are going to have more floods, we are going to have more sea surges and we are going to have more storms”.

Strengthening flood defences should therefore be a top priority—both in its own right as a matter of sound policy, but also to contain the rising insurance premiums that have prompted today’s debate—and yet environmental resilience has been relatively low down the pecking order of UK environmental policy for more than a decade. By way of illustration, the cost to businesses and consumers of the inefficient green subsidies to solar and onshore wind through the renewables obligation will be £2.6 billion this financial year. That is almost as much as DEFRA will spend on flooding and coastal defences over the entire five-year period of this Parliament. Those are skewed priorities. The Government ought to place greater emphasis on adapting to the reality of climate change—the environmental here and now—and spend less time speculating on technological winners that hike energy bills, particularly for the squeezed middle, without substantially decarbonising the UK economy.

That points to a more systemic, bureaucratic problem, namely the lack of policy coherence between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and DEFRA since they were separated in 2008 by the previous Government. Too often, DEFRA feels like DECC’s more realistic but poorer cousin, and yet DEFRA is left to pick up the pieces when an environmental crisis strikes. Have Ministers considered re-merging the two Departments? That would integrate policy and realise at least £1 billion from cutting bureaucracy, which could be used to invest in flood defences as well as to pay off the deficit more quickly.

The state has a role to play in managing acute and severe risks such as flooding. We need the Government to provide the right framework to meet UK energy demands, especially through nuclear power and shale gas; to invest in flood and coastal defences; and to strike the right deal with industry, and soon, to protect small businesses and vulnerable homes from soaring insurance premiums. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicola Blackwood]

I agree that infrastructure is vital. I believe deeply that many of the problems we face today stem from an inherited legacy of bad planning.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

rose—

[Nicola Blackwood]

My right hon. Friend—ish—the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) knows how difficult it can be to get accountability and solutions for constituents when responsibility falls between the Environment Agency, local authorities and Thames Water, and he might want to comment on that point.

[Mr Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend-ish for giving way.

Flood waters are no respecters of constituency boundaries and we work closely on these issues. On planning, does the hon. Lady agree that, given that successive Governments and councils of all complexions have allowed so much development on the floodplain, it is perfectly proper for the state to pick up some of the responsibility by participating in insurance schemes, such as “Flood Re”, which are the only way to protect our constituents from unaffordable premiums?

[Nicola Blackwood]

Clearly, it is vital that flood insurance continues to be widely available and affordable, a point I will come to in a moment. Although there is frustration about the responsibility of different agencies working together to respond to constituents, the emergency response to flood events locally since 2007 has improved dramatically, and there have been positive developments on flood defences in Kidlington and Oxford.

However, none of that addresses the long-term strategic challenges we face, and insurance has to be at the top of that list. That is why, with all the other urgent flooding priorities that we have heard about, we have to focus on the 30 June deadline. That date dominates the lives of far too many of my constituents. They fear that they will suddenly become uninsurable, breach their mortgage conditions and have unsellable properties. While I appreciate that negotiations with the Association of British Insurers have been complex and that there is no easy solution, especially with the current fiscal situation, it is not as if we did not see this coming—it has been coming since the statement of principles was agreed in 2002.

If we are not going to hit the deadline, we need to be clear and transparent with constituents about what will happen between then and any future deal. Until now, the line has been not to undermine negotiations by giving a running commentary on them. That is not unreasonable and had an agreement been reached in time, I think that all would have been forgiven, but people need to know now how to protect themselves. Ministers have been clear about their priorities, which are to ensure that flood insurance remains widely available, affordable and fiscally sustainable. Nobody is going to argue with any of those principles, but they will not help householders to work out how to plan for their financial future.

I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. On the stroke of midnight on 30 June, will we have a free market or will we have some kind of interim extension of the statement of principles? If it is the latter, have there been any discussions about what form it will take? If the Government are going to let the free market emerge in the interim, will Ministers let it be genuinely uncontrolled, with all the pricing risks that holds, or are they considering regulation? If so, what kind of regulation, and how and when? On “Flood Re”, the current cross-subsidy is £8. Yesterday the ABI told me that the proposed levy would also come to £8, but it would have to be formalised as a tax. However, the National Flood Forum brief estimates the levy at £13. What assessment have the Government made of the levy and what mechanism would they need to regulate it? Finally, what measures are being considered to incentivise flood defence investment on a personal, local and national level? That is the only responsible way to manage flood risk on an ongoing basis.

I accept that it takes two to tango. I met the ABI yesterday and I made those points, but I am afraid that today it is the Minister’s turn. My constituents deserve to know whether their homes will be insured in July and on what terms. They deserve at least that measure of certainty, even though they live in a flood-risk zone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Local flood groups are very important for our communities. I am sure that, like my community flood group, my hon. Friend’s is working hard with the Environment Agency, the local authority and the local water and drainage boards to improve flood resistance capabilities.

Some ideas that have been considered include allowing local residents to have control over mobile pumping units and sandbag storage and delivery and to use their local knowledge to protect the most vulnerable people. We must not forget that there are some severely vulnerable people in flood-risk areas, and we must make sure that they do not become isolated by flooding. Independently, many people are considering making flood resilience improvements to their own homes.

The hard work, positive action and sense of resolve that I have witnessed in Naburn is extraordinary, and the community should be commended for its collective approach to the problems that it faces. I am well aware that, as has been pointed out, there are similar stories across the country of communities coming together to battle the difficulties of flooding, and they should all be commended.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I, too, praise the Oxford Flood Alliance. Insurance is one aspect being pursued there. The alliance has found that just because one person in one property gets a quote from an insurance company their neighbour may not be able to get anything like a similar quote from the same company, because the companies limit their exposure in these areas. That is driving up premiums and giving people intolerable uncertainty.

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have been told of similar circumstances in relation to the accessibility of local flood insurance.

What my constituents fear, as I do, is that their efforts, which I have just explained, could all be in vain if the statement of principles ends without a new agreement in place. Home insurance premiums would sky-rocket for all residents in communities such as Naburn, regardless of whether or not a property is susceptible to flooding. Some people would lose flood insurance altogether, and, as has been said, mortgage agreements could be at risk as a result. I understand the need for negotiations between the Government and the ABI to be private and confidential, but the lack of any specific details emerging from the negotiations is fuelling my constituents’ concerns about how they will cope in the future.

My constituents are prepared to come together to work as a community to face up to the flooding threat on their doorstep. They therefore need the same commitment from the Government and the insurance industry to do all that they can to protect people from the worst excesses of flooding and deliver an agreement that improves the availability and affordability of flooding insurance where flood resilience measures fail. It is time for action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for correcting me about that being a not-for-profit scheme, but that was not the point I was making.

My point is that when we levy all insurance payers to build up a fund that takes the risk of properties in high-risk areas away from the insurance companies, we should not be too generous because insurance companies are all about taking risk. That is what they are in business for. They should therefore be able to take their fair share of risk. I want to ensure that the insurance companies step up to the plate, but also that the Government help those who, in their areas, cannot get flood insurance under a private scheme on the free market. That is the balance that must be struck.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a precedent for the Government’s participating in the way that we are all advocating in the “Pool Re” arrangements that provide terrorism insurance cover?

[Neil Parish]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government can step up to the plate and be the insurer of last resort. However, the point I am making is that the Government must be the insurer of last resort, not the insurer of first resort.

Because there has been so much flooding in the past year, the insurance companies have naturally been putting the maximum possible pressure on the Government. They are in business, so it is right for them to do so. However, given that everybody who pays insurance across the piece will pay for the scheme, the Government must ensure that everybody is dealt with fairly.

It is essential that people who genuinely cannot get insurance—those who have been flooded two or three times, such as my constituents in Feniton—can get insurance in the future. The current statement of principles does not cover them. I am therefore looking forward to the Government putting in place a much better system so that people can access insurance irrespective of whether they have been flooded several times. It is not their fault that they live in a property that is flooding; in many respects, it is planning decisions that generate floods.

In the village of Feniton, there have been appeal decisions allowing more houses to be built where the appeal inspector has actually recognised in his brief that the village will flood and might flood further as a result of the development, but has allowed the houses anyway because the district council has not got its five-year housing plan up to speed. That means that the poor people down the bottom of Feniton will get flooded even more. What is the logic of that? This must be not only about flood insurance but about a planning policy that says we do not build on floodplains or on hills above villages so that the water runs off and floods the people at the bottom end of the village even more. This is something I get quite excited about, because the people who get flooded should not have to put up with it.

Other hon. Members have talked about ensuring that the money for the Bellwin scheme is available when, for example, roads are washed away by floods. Very often, the Government claim that Bellwin is available to local authorities, but when the latter claim it, the Government and the bureaucracy decide that many of the proposed schemes to cover flood damage are not eligible. That has to be dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I am really short of time, but I will respond to the point that I believe the hon. Gentleman wants to make. If I have time to give way at the end, I will do so.

As Ministers have repeatedly made clear, the main aim of our work has always been to reach an agreement whereby insurance bills remain affordable, without placing unacceptable and unsustainable costs on wider policyholders. The Government have been doing a lot to support the continued availability of affordable insurance. Reducing flood risk will always be the best and most sustainable solution. Despite difficult times, we are on track to spend more than £2.3 billion to deliver better protection from flooding and coastal erosion to more than 165,000 homes over the four years to 2015. Our new system of partnership funding has brought in an additional £148 million on top of that from external partners. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), have benefited from that in their constituencies. I give full praise to him and his constituents for the leadership that they have shown.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked why there was nothing in the Budget, but £120 million of investment was announced in the autumn statement. Many of those schemes are shovel-ready and proceeding, and they are a great comfort to constituents.

Despite last year being the second wettest on record, more than 200,000 homes were protected from flooding because of defences already in place. The Environment Agency’s flood warning service provided additional support; evidence is emerging that many houses avoid flooding because of the better flood warning system. We have estimated that, for every property that suffered flooding last year and in January, more than 25 homes were protected because of flood defences and maintenance work and because of the work of the Environment Agency, local authorities and other front-line responders. More than 200,000 householders are therefore benefiting from the Government’s continued investment in managing flood risk.

Many hon. Members are impatient for information on the Government’s discussions. I am impatient to share the details, but it would be quite wrong to go into too much detail.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in offering commiserations to her constituent and her family for their loss. I entirely agree with her that all available information must be made publicly available, so that we can get to the bottom of what precisely happened.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

If I can, I will try to give way in a moment.

We have recently announced a flood resilience community pathfinder scheme for Cornwall and a number of other parts of the country. In my hon. Friend’s case, £476,000 will be spent in Cornwall.

The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) said that the statement of principles was universal insurance.

[Richard Benyon]

Perhaps that is not what the hon. Gentleman said. The statement of principles is not universal —not by a long chalk—which is part of the problem. Everything he said in his quote from the Prime Minister is absolutely right, and I thank him for pointing it out.

When Conservatives were in opposition in 2008, it was agreed that a successor to the statement of principles would be required. The previous Government agreed that a market could emerge after the end of the agreement. The statement of principles says that there will be no need for specific agreements after June 2013. All hon. Members disagree with that and believe that we need a follow-up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, to whom I want to give time to make a winding-up speech, asked about the Government’s view of a flood mutual, which is an important question. We are looking very closely at the proposal, which is a possible alternative to “Flood Re”. We are working closely with those who are making that proposal.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to be very brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Smith]

The Minister said earlier that he was impatient to share information with the House. Can he tell us what the Government’s sticking point—their fundamental problem—is with the “Flood Re” proposal?

[Richard Benyon]

I will come on to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) talked about flood insurance in the context of terrorism, but those are entirely different types of insurance. The pool model does work for some of them, but the “Flood Re” model would not work in this case, because it does not provide support for the cost of that cover. He made the point that “Flood Re” is a not-for-profit solution. Well, yes and no, in that the Government would pay through a levy—so householders are paying for it with an element of underwriting—but taking away risk from the most at risk is an advantage to the industry. So we must be very careful. The Minister’s job is to look after the taxpayer and householder. Yes, we need a solution, but not at any price. Whoever was standing at the Dispatch Box, they would not want to bring before the House a deal that was unworkable or that would cause the wrong sort of increases for some of the most at risk and hard up of our constituents. We need to get this right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) made a point about farmland and the wider risk. When farmland is flooded as part of a formal flood alleviation scheme, the landowner is compensated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton introduced the debate with a powerful speech. He made a point about the governance of any arrangements. He was right to do so, and it is important that we take forward his concerns and make those arrangements clear in the announcement. I can assure him that the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working closely.

I was concerned that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) talked about shambolic local flood administration in her constituency. We have implemented the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which arose from Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations after 2007. I note that she said that that is not happening in her constituency, and I am happy to take that up.

Many hon. Members made good points, which I could probably summarise as, “We want a decision and an announcement soon, because our constituents are worried.” I can understand that. We are doing other things to help those who might be struggling to find affordable insurance. We have published a guide to obtaining flood insurance in high flood risk areas in collaboration with the National Flood Forum, Which? and insurance industry representatives. The guide helps people navigate through the insurance market and acts as a signpost to actions that individuals can take to reduce their flood risk.

Insurance can be found for reasonable prices if people talk to their insurer about their specific circumstances. The Environment Agency can provide supporting evidence on the local flood risk, for free, which people can use in discussions, and I want to hear from hon. Members if that is not happening. Different companies take different approaches to flood risk and it almost always pays to shop around.

I recognise the great concern on both sides of the House on this matter. I want to give hon. Members and their constituents the assurance that they want, but I will not do it at any price. Yes, it has taken longer than any of us would have wished, but I hope that the deal we bring to the House will be better than what we have now, especially for those of our constituents who are on low incomes.

Oceans and Marine Ecosystems

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

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

This debate is important for the opportunity not only to highlight in Parliament the plight of our oceans but to focus more on the international dimension of protecting them, including the high seas beyond national jurisdictions. Thankfully, the issue is now coming to the attention of international policy makers—it was not even raised at Rio in 1992, but became one of the most high-visibility issues at Rio+20 this year. Although Rio fell a long way short of the actions identified by scientists as crucial, its decisions were, in the words of Professor Alex Rogers of the International Programme on the State of the Ocean,

“urgent, important and game changing measures which should be immediately implemented by governments as a direct response to the oceans text.”

I hope today’s debate is timely in focusing on the role that the Government should play in making progress. Britain can make a real difference. The United Kingdom, through its overseas territories, is responsible for the world’s fifth largest marine area after the US, France, Australia and Russia, amounting to nearly 2% of the world’s oceans. We are, therefore, a major player, with a duty to act.

I will outline the scale of the crisis facing the world’s oceans. Oceans and seas are of course critical to sustaining the earth’s life support systems and to our survival. Covering 72% of the earth’s surface, oceans and seas moderate our climate by absorbing heat and around 30% of global CO₂ emissions. They are the habitat of nearly 50% of all species and, as a result, are vital for global food security—providing 2.6 billion people with their primary source of protein—and for the well-being of many national economies, especially in developing countries.

The health of the oceans, however, is under threat. Organisations such as Greenpeace, with its “Defending our Oceans” campaign, the World Wildlife Fund—WWF—and many others have been campaigning to raise awareness of the findings of marine scientists, which I hope to give expression to in this Chamber. The findings in the IPSO report published last June are particularly shocking. It said that the seas are degenerating faster than anyone had predicted because of the cumulative effect of a number of severe individual stresses—from climate change and sea water acidification to widespread chemical pollution and gross overfishing. In particular, it said that the world’s oceans are facing an unprecedented loss of species, from large fish to tiny coral, comparable to the great mass extinctions of prehistory. Approximately 90% of the big predatory fish in our oceans, such as sharks and tuna, have been fished out since the 1950s. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that 85% of global marine fish stocks are fully exploited, overexploited or depleted, a subject to which I shall return.

Scientists are also discovering growing areas of the ocean that suffer from hypoxia—regions that are starved of oxygen—caused by warmer sea temperatures, which is also increasing sea levels and changing ocean currents. Whole species of fish are at risk due to the temperature rise. They simply cannot survive in the changed conditions. Pollution is also damaging our seas. Although oil spills from tanker accidents are among the more visible and more talked-about pollutants, their impact is less than that from other sources, which include domestic sewage, industrial discharges, urban and industrial run-off, accidents, spillage, explosions, sea dumping, plastic debris, mining, agricultural nutrients and pesticides.

Not only are there severe declines in many fish species, and an unparalleled rate of regional extinction of some habitat types, such as mangrove and seagrass meadows, but some whole marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, could disappear this century in what has been described as

“a first for mankind—the extinction of an entire ecosystem”.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate. I do not want to anticipate the rest of her speech, but does she agree that the evidence shows that rigorously enforced marine conservation zones can make a real difference in starting to turn things around? The lesson is that we, internationally, and the world need to be more ambitious about the scale of such zones and more rigorous in restricting the activity that can take place in them.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I shall come on to marine conservation zones mooted in the UK and what we can do internationally to persuade and join up with other countries to have larger zones.

One of the reasons why I am interested in the issue is that I am a keen scuba diver. At an anecdotal level, I have heard stories about the decline in coral reefs. I was speaking to someone the other day who has been running trips from Bristol for about 30 years. He said that the Great Barrier reef is now almost unrecognisable as the place where he used to dive 20 years ago, because of bleaching and reef damage and disappearance.

Around one fifth of global coral reefs have already been damaged beyond repair, including catastrophic mass bleaching in 1998 when scientists watched between 80% and 90% of all the corals die on the reefs of the Seychelles in a few weeks. Professor Callum Roberts said that

“outside the world of marine science, this global catastrophe has passed largely unseen and unremarked.”

It is predicted that 90% of all coral reefs will be threatened by 2030 and all coral reefs by 2050, if no protective measures are taken.

That goes some way to outlining the scale of the problem, so I now want to discuss the solution. Although Rio was disappointing—I think most people agree—and it mostly reaffirmed existing commitments and promises, it marks a point from which countries should now focus on action and implementation. The High Seas Alliance and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition have set out the key commitments that Governments now need to act upon. I hope that the Minister can make a firm commitment today to implement those decisions and to set out how the Government will do so.

The top commitment was

“to address, on an urgent basis, the issue of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction”—

in particular through networks of marine protected areas—

“including by taking a decision on the development of an international instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”

before the end of the 69th session of the UN General Assembly.

More than 64% of our oceans are beyond the jurisdiction of any one country—the so-called high seas. UNCLOS, the UN convention on the law of the sea, provides the legal framework for governing such areas, but the current structure is highly fragmented and has huge governance gaps. It is widely acknowledged that an agreement under UNCLOS is needed to assist the creation and management of marine reserves; to set a framework for environmental impact assessments to be undertaken before damaging activities are allowed to take place; and to co-ordinate a highly fragmented structure of regional organisations that currently regulate human activities.

The Arctic ocean provides a strong case for reform of UNCLOS as it becomes accessible to deep-sea oil drilling and large industrial-scale fishing fleets with the melting of the permanent sea ice. Regulation of such activities is entirely inadequate. The Environmental Audit Committee has been hearing evidence as part of its inquiry into protecting the Arctic, highlighting grave problems with responses to an accident or major oil spill, which would have even more serious environmental consequences than a similar incident in warmer water.

The biggest disappointment at Rio was that an unholy alliance of the US, Venezuela, Russia and Japan blocked a decision on an agreement under UNCLOS for a maximum of two years, until the 69th session of the UN General Assembly in 2014. Although action is desperately needed now, that at least sets a deadline towards which Governments in favour of an ocean rescue plan can work. The 2014 deadline should not, therefore, be seen as a target date to start looking at how we protect and rescue our oceans, but rather as a deadline by which to have completely decided on the way forward for formal negotiations.

What steps will the UK now take, with the others that spoke in favour of an agreement—such as Brazil, Australia, the European Union, South Africa, India and the Pacific Islands—to move the agenda forward and to urge the UN General Assembly to convene, as a matter of urgency, a diplomatic conference to deliver a new implementing agreement under UNCLOS? What steps will the Minister take towards establishing marine protected areas and marine reserves, creating offshore oil and gas no-go zones in the Arctic, and agreeing a mandatory polar shipping code?

Marine protected areas, which have been mentioned, are underwater national parks that help areas to recover and rebuild, and help fish stocks to be replenished and marine ecosystems and coastal communities to have breathing space and better protection from the effects of climate change. Just before Rio, Australia announced its plan to create the world’s largest network of marine reserves, an area encompassing one third of its territorial waters, where fishing will be restricted and oil and gas exploration banned in the most sensitive areas.

In addition, all 1,192 of the Maldive Islands will become a marine reserve by 2017. The UK’s overseas territories provide an opportunity to designate large marine reserves, such as that created in Chagos under the previous Government. I would be grateful if the Minister reported on the progress the Government are making in supporting overseas territories in designating more large-scale marine reserves in the near future.

What discussions has the Minister and his ministerial colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had with other nations that have overseas territories, such as France, about the creation of marine protected areas or about joint working with them to join up areas where our territories coincide?

Flood Defences

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

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

According to the Association of British Insurers, Oxford West and Abingdon is the constituency with the 49th highest flood risk in the UK, with more than 2,000 homes and businesses at significant risk of flooding. That assessment excludes risks associated with surface flooding caused by heavy rainfall. Despite the high level of local flood risk, the Oxford flood risk management scheme received such a low cost-benefit analysis that even under the new “all or part or none” funding provisions, it will be necessary to find non-Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding for 92% of the project, or approximately £127 million of the £133 million project. At the same time, in Abingdon, where nearly 500 homes and businesses were flooded badly in 2007, neither of the flood storage proposals for the River Stert or the River Ock reached even that level of cost-benefit threshold: they were rejected outright as “not economically viable”.

Those decisions have been disappointing to many, especially those whose homes and families are at risk of flooding, but everyone understands that we are in a time of austerity and that the money must go where it will do the most good—that is fair. Having said that, we heard just before the recess the good news that there would be a lot of weir work going on: Osney weirs A and B and Godstow weir B will receive funding. Design and appraisal work for raised flood defences at Lower Wolvercote, and the Farm road scheme in Abingdon in partnership with the Vale of White Horse district council, will go ahead. This last project’s bid for £40,000 in funding was rejected in December. I am pleased that the Environment Agency has had a change of heart on its viability.

I began this debate by outlining at some length the flood context in my constituency, and will come on to discuss the key issue—funding the replacement for Northmoor weir from flood defence funding—for two reasons. The first is to make the Minister appreciate fully that for far too many people in my constituency, the spending of flood defence money is not a bureaucratic issue to do with balance sheets. Hundreds of people were made homeless for months in 2007, losing prized possessions, mementos and even pets to the floods. Those memories are still raw. Given the current economic situation, we have had to cut flood defence funding by 6%. I need to be able to assure those constituents that, even where money cannot be spent locally, the Government are spending, transparently and accountably, each and every penny of available flood defence funding in the best possible way. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

Secondly, I am not taking issue with flood funding provision in other parts of my constituency today. My concern, and that of my constituents, is the Environment Agency’s programme to replace all paddle and rymer weirs on health and safety grounds and, in particular, the replacement of the Northmoor weir in the village of Appleton in my constituency. My constituents in Appleton and elsewhere have opposed the idea since before my election. Indeed, my first meeting with the Environment Agency and local residents on the subject dates back to before I was elected in 2010. The Minister knows the background only too well following our extensive correspondence, but for the sake of colleagues, I will outline the salient points.

Northmoor weir, like all paddle and rymer weirs, is manually operated by lock-keepers who pull the paddles and rymers out of the weir system to adjust the water levels. The weir has been operating in that way for more than 200 years. Northmoor weir was extensively refurbished in 1995 and given a 40 to 60-year lifespan. Between 2008 and 2010, however, the Environment Agency decided to conduct extensive health and safety tests on the weirs. It is unclear why it suddenly decided to do so, given that the relevant legislation dates back to 1992, before the refurbishment of Northmoor weir, and given that there is no record of a serious injury, which might reasonably be supposed to have triggered such a response.

The report, by HJ Consultants, was of the opinion that it was only a matter of time before there was a major injury on the paddle and rymer weir. That is despite the fact that the only injuries recorded under the safety, health and environmental reporting and management system since 2000 are strains, sprains and splinters. Even before the introduction of that system, the assessor could only record one brain haemorrhage, in 1991, that may or may not be attributed to the pulling of a paddle and, before the introduction of safety harnesses, an incident in which a lock-keeper at Blakes weir fell in. I assume that safety harnesses have now addressed that situation.

The consultant found that the loads at the weir exceeded the levels recommended by the Health and Safety Executive, but found no evidence that that had caused any significant problem in more than two centuries of use, even though the consultant found that there had been no regular programme of health and safety training offered to lock-keepers, with one lock-keeper last receiving manual handling training more than seven years ago. Just think how many fewer sprains and splinters there might have been if regular training had been provided during that time, and if there was a work pattern that provided a formal break for lock-keepers in the morning, as recommended on page five.

Should the Minister think I am being a little hard on lock-keepers, here is what one of them wrote to the Prime Minister on the issue:

“My work over the years included the operation of both Paddle and Rymer and more modern weirs, and I can say that, with proper training, care and safety precautions, there was very little danger involved. Any equipment can be worked dangerously. The worst scenario was the possibility of misjudging the placing of a rymer or a paddle in the flowing water: one had the choice between trying to save it or losing it through the weir! It was not a very hard choice! Also, it was not actually lost, and would float around in the vicinity until retrieved later.”

That is just one of many similar comments I have received from Thames lock-keepers. Nevertheless, it was on the basis of that health and safety report that the Environment Agency decided it was imperative to spend £2.6 million from the flood defence funds to replace Northmoor weir.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate, which of course touches on matters that affect my constituency, too. Will she join me in congratulating the Oxford Flood Alliance for its work, and does she agree that the Environment Agency generally takes better decisions when it takes notice of what the OFA and local residents have to say? Even if the health and safety case was accepted, the Environment Agency should be funding the project not from flood prevention money, but from some other budget.

[Nicola Blackwood]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The Oxford Flood Alliance has stated publicly, and to me personally, that it has significant reservations about the project.

The Environment Agency has stated that the project will improve the weir’s resilience and speed of operation. At a meeting of the Environment Agency, Northmoor and Appleton parish councillors and me in December, the EA acknowledged that there had never been any problem with the operation of the weir, even in times of flood. It is important to note that the project will not reduce flood risk. The EA specifically confirmed to me in writing, and at the meeting of December 2011, that the project will not reduce flood risk in any way, and that in any case—according to the EA—the number of properties affected directly by the operation of the weir amounts to five. That comes out at £500,000 per property, if we are counting. Nevertheless, the finance will still come from the flood defence budget.

According to the EA in December 2011, the project has such high priority that it would go ahead even if it cost £10 million. On hearing that extraordinary statement, I became uncomfortably well acquainted with the health and safety apparatus of Whitehall, as every good constituency MP should. On writing to the HSE, to ask whether such a position was reasonable, I was told:

“The EA has carried out an extensive risk assessment. The aim of the risk assessment is to help the EA identify reasonably practicable ways of reducing or controlling the risks of injury from operating the weirs. As part of this, the EA would need to consider costs and their likely effectiveness in reducing the risks.”

I have been astonished to learn, however, that EA policy is apparently not to conduct cost-benefit analyses for health and safety projects, even if they come from flood defence funding, a budget considered so precious that all flood defence proposals must be subjected to rigorous cost-benefit analysis. I was told by the EA in December that that was because the policy was to eliminate all risk.

Being joyfully unfamiliar with the health and safety world until then, I thought that cost-benefit analyses might not generally be conducted for health and safety. In fact, the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, which are the relevant health and safety regulations, state:

“The extent of the employer’s duty to avoid manual handling or to reduce the risk of injury is determined by reference to what is ‘reasonably practicable’. This duty can be satisfied if the employer can show that the cost of any further preventive steps would be grossly disproportionate to the further benefit from their introduction.”

The concept of “so far as is reasonably practicable” was tested in case law as far back as 1949, in Edwards v. National Coal Board, which established that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk, is placed on the other. If it be shown that there is gross disproportion between them, the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom the duty is laid has discharged the burden of proving that compliance was not reasonably practicable.

It is clear, therefore, that what is required by law is not to eliminate the risk, as I was informed, but to reduce the risk to what is reasonably practicable and to consider the cost of doing so. Any action in which the cost was grossly disproportionate would not be required by law, and the HSE expected the EA to have considered the cost. Indeed, freely available on the HSE website I found not one but two helpful documents that walked me through how to do a cost-benefit analysis for a health and safety project, one of which even had a user-friendly checklist. I am not a lawyer, though, so I asked to see the EA’s legal advice, to see if there were grounds for the multi-million-pound health and safety investment that I had failed to grasp. The EA, however, confirmed that before committing to the full replacement of nine paddle and rymer weirs as the only appropriate level of response to its legal responsibilities under health and safety legislation, it had taken no legal advice of any kind.

The picture is now fairly clear, but before closing, I will express one further concern that has arisen in discussions about EA plans for Northmoor weir. It is about the really poor standard of consultation and communication that has marked the process from the beginning. Appleton residents, who will bear the brunt of building disruption if the project goes ahead, found out about the project when there was an application for suspension of parking along the route to the weir. Understandably, that led to outrage in the village and a vigorous local campaign by the parish council and the Weir Action Group, but despite delaying the work for a year, ostensibly to consult with the local community, the only change that the EA has made to the project so far was the proposal for a change of access route, so that Appleton residents experience less disruption during the two years that the work will take.

Obviously, if the weir goes ahead regardless of every objection I have put forward today, it is clearly preferable that the works route is not directly through the village, but the local objections, and the objections from some on the far side of the river and from others at risk of flooding in the rest of my constituency, are not simply about a works route. They are about the whole justification of the project, and its funding from the flood defence budget. To characterise them as anything else is simply inaccurate and misleading.

Other concerns about the quality of consultation have come to me from owners of nearby land considered for use in possible access routes. One wrote to me to say:

“At no time has the EA been in direct contact with us (or any of the relevant landowners I believe). I first heard of the whole project in February 2010—the proposed start date for the project then was 1 April 2010! I was then rung by a neighbouring farmer to warn me that the Contractors for the EA were going to come and survey our land but…the Contractors…had been unable to find out who owned our land and had contacted him for our telephone number. I phoned the contractors who paid me a visit prior to doing the survey. They were perfectly pleasant but I think as shocked as I was that the EA had not been in contact with me. The survey was duly done but we have never received any information or follow up from either the Contractors or the EA since”.

I am afraid that that example is not isolated. Failure to follow up meetings, to contact individuals or to communicate more widely have been hallmarks of the project so far.

The EA accepted in the December 2011 meeting that there had been significant such failures, but that does not seem to have stopped it, as is evident from a letter from the chairman of the board of the Environment Agency—briefed, I assume, by his officials—to the Minister. The letter claims that I believed that the £2.6 million being spent on the weir should be transferred to other local flood defence schemes. The Minister must know that I have never made that suggestion, and nor would I.

I said that when other flood defence schemes locally were being turned down, it was difficult to justify spending £2.6 million on health and safety, which is what it is. I said that flood defence money must be allocated on the grounds of greatest need, wherever that might be. I fully accept that, and my constituents fully accept that, but I am unable to assure my constituents that that is what is happening in this case, because the necessary due diligence on the project was never done. I said that when every flood defence proposal that is granted funding is first tested to destruction by EA cost-benefit analysis models, it is incomprehensible that in this case the EA is willing to spend millions of flood defence money with no cost-benefit analysis of any kind, with no legal advice of any kind and with no analysis of alternatives that would work for Northmoor weir specifically.

I ask the Minister, therefore, to ensure that the EA suspends the project until there has been a full and transparent cost-benefit analysis. On Wednesday, I discussed the project with the Prime Minister, as the MP for the other side of the weir, so I know that he has also written to the Minister asking for that to be done. The Prime Minister is also concerned that we should be able to defend our flood defence spending fully to the public. We will not be able to do so, however, until there is also sound legal advice that this multi-million pound health and safety investment is reasonably practicable, and not grossly disproportionate, and, most sensible of all, until we have a genuine Northmoor-specific study to see if there are more proportionate options that will meet the EA’s genuine health and safety obligations.

My constituents face flood risk daily, but they are not asking for preferential treatment or for funding of projects that do not meet the cost-benefit thresholds set by DEFRA. All they want to know is that flood defence money is being spent on genuine flood defence projects, and that every single penny of that budget can be transparently accounted for. All they want is a fair playing field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

If the weir does not work, properties will be flooded. We can argue that the existing paddle and rymer weir works perfectly well, but as my hon. Friend knows, the Environment Agency has received consultants’ reports stating that the working load is way in excess of what one would normally allow for employees. I am sure that that she would agree that she and I as employers in business would have to take note of advice that is given. One always tries to do that proportionately, but it must be understood that the advice was given. It would be difficult for the Government to sit at arm’s length and ignore advice that the loading is four times too high and the risks that emanate from that. It is difficult for Ministers to overrule such advice, but I will talk about that further.

The Health and Safety Executive has seen the reports from the Environment Agency and the Appleton Weir Action Group and has written back in support of the agency’s position. As a responsible employer, the Environment Agency cannot ignore the advice of the Health and Safety Executive. Sitting back and doing nothing is no longer an option. The weir clearly poses risks to those who must operate it and to those live in the neighbouring constituency. An assessment of risk is not just about whether there have been accidents, but about the potential for accidents. I am a sceptic of all matters relating to health and safety, and I do not come to the matter as a quisling of the health and safety industry, for that is what it has become. I come to it as a sceptic, like my hon. Friend. I have looked at the matter in great detail, and if I were an employer on the board of the Environment Agency, I would find it difficult to ignore the report.

That brings me to the flood benefits of the weir, and why they have not been assessed for this project. The flood risk in the area is well known. Around 80 houses behind the north bank have a 1% chance or greater of flooding each year. In flood conditions, the Northmoor weir is opened, so that flood water can pass through as quickly as possible. The relationship between the weir structure and flood risk is well understood and would not benefit from further investigation. Doing that would have added unnecessary and damaging cost to an already expensive project.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

If the Minister is relying for this part of his argument on the flood prevention benefit that he supposes exists, is it not right, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) said, that there should be a cost-benefit analysis? If that is not made and he is relying on the health and safety part of his argument, how can be justify taking the cost from the flood prevention budget? Surely, he cannot have it both ways.

[Richard Benyon]

During my long discussions with the Environment Agency, I became convinced that it really does understand the flood risks. I do not believe that it spends money without looking carefully at the alternatives. I have seen all eight or nine alternatives that have been presented—many of them were untried and untested as a means of lifting the paddle and rymers out using mechanical systems—as well as replacements with alternative schemes. All of them, because of the design processes that would have to be applied and the further delay, would have cost more. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is understood throughout the Environment Agency and my Department that every penny that we spend must be spent in the right way. We ensure that the budgets that we manage go as far as possible, and I will come on to explain why the spending must go ahead.

Given that something must be done, the Environment Agency has focused on identifying the cheapest and best way to solve the problem. It looked into the matter in considerable detail, and I have seen the summary of the detailed analysis, which points to the radial gate solution that the agency is pursuing. The other options would be more expensive, and in some cases there would be no guarantee that they would even work, because they are untried in other areas. Replacing the weir will not remove risks altogether, but it will reduce them to a reasonable level for the staff concerned and provide more reliable long-term protection for those living on the flood plain to the north.

When reviewing the background to the matter, I also considered the steps the Environment Agency has taken to consult local residents on the project. Objections have been raised, primarily from those who are not at risk of flooding, but who will suffer increased traffic and disruption during the work, and I entirely understand that.

Flood Defences

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a privilege and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, as my immediate constituency neighbour and someone who is familiar with the problems of flooding in Yorkshire.

I am delighted to have secured this debate on the implications of the potential delays to planned flood defence systems. In the short time available, I want to focus on a technical point and relate it to my constituency, North Yorkshire and Yorkshire and the Humber, areas with which I am familiar. I hope to put to my hon. Friend the Minister a once in a lifetime opportunity. I am sure that there are occasions when he lies awake in the middle of the night wondering what he can do, in what one hopes will be a long ministerial and parliamentary career, to make a difference. I suggest that he has an opportunity here and now to make a difference to a large number of people not only in Pickering, Thirsk and North Yorkshire, but in the rest of the country.

The Minister is familiar with the background to the scheme, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State had the opportunity to visit Pickering and see the work on the “Slowing the Flow” project. The Minister will know that the original £6 million scheme for flood defences at Pickering was rejected by the town and the district civic society, but, eventually, in April 2009—with confirmation in 2010—funding for the Pickering pilot project was announced. It is a unique, pioneering scheme, with Government bodies working closely with communities, where there is not an established pot of money. There are particular difficulties with the course and nature of the river upstream of Pickering, which, as you will be aware, Mr Bayley, is where the beautiful North Yorkshire Moors railway is located. The innovative and pioneering scheme involves creating buffer strips along water courses, digging ditches and blocking moorland drains, as well as planting trees.

The scheme was created with the compliance of the landowner and in partnership with the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, Durham university, as an academic partner, the North York Moors national park authority, Natural England and Ryedale district council, primarily driven by Pickering town council and the local floods group. There was extreme shock, surprise and disappointment when in June, at the eleventh hour—the technical aspect of the scheme that I want to discuss was due to start this summer—the scheme was put on hold and effectively cancelled, as the cost was deemed to have undergone a staggering increase from an initial £1.3 million to a total of £3.2 million. That was alleged to be due to the requirements of the 1996 guidance to the Reservoirs Act 1975, which is the focus of my questions to the Minister and of my call for action.

The guidance states that the bunds must be able to withstand a one in 10,000 year flood event. However, one local, who is expert in the matter, has said:

“While I appreciate that more detailed modelling and info was constantly coming to light to influence the res engs decision, the fact remains that the critical factors of bund capacity of 85k m3 and the number and proximity of properties at Newbridge remained constant throughout.”

You almost could not make this up, but I did not appreciate before preparing for the debate that a community is 10 properties. Were there only nine properties at Newbridge, the scheme would proceed apace. There would be no cause for delay or concern about the reservoir. Newbridge has been there for far longer than the proposed scheme.

One option—not my favourite—would involve the compulsory purchase of one of the dwellings or properties at Newbridge. That would be the most regressive and least favoured option, but it shows how daft it is that some of the definitions, such as the number of properties that form a community, lead to perverse decisions. As my constituent goes on to say:

“I just cannot understand an anomaly within effective legislation that allows this.”

That is a reference to the fact that the interpretation of the Reservoirs Act 1975, through the guidance, is either woolly or misleading. Although it appears on the one hand that high-risk criteria are precisely laid down, there appears to be a get-out clause to lower the classification to low risk. My constituent concludes:

“I shudder to think what these obligatory Res Engineers are being paid”—

that is his personal comment, I hasten to add—

“but there is something seriously wrong when their interpretation can vastly alter the design criteria from one month to the next when all the physically present criteria remain constant…unless the application of common sense is overtly permissible.”

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss McIntosh]

I wish to make progress.

I do not want to use the debate to apportion blame. I want to use it in a constructive way to urge the Minister to remove the barriers to this project and to other projects. There are similar difficulties in Thirsk, and the common thread of the flood defence schemes is that part of the project in both Thirsk and Pickering allows a storage bund to be created. However, that is now being defined as a reservoir under the Reservoirs Act 1975. My conclusion is that the projects are being over-engineered with structures that are too complicated, and falling foul of the iniquitous 1996 guidance note to the 1975 Act. Clearly, there is a gap between aspirations for individual projects, such as the Pickering pilot project and the Thirsk flood defence scheme, and the ability of the Environment Agency and others to deliver on such schemes.

The Pickering bund scheme has highlighted a lack of clarity about high risk and lower risk in the 1975 Act, and, therefore, a major disconnect between legislation and guidance. There is little guidance beyond the matter of actual reservoirs. It does not seem sensible to build bunds to withstand a flood of biblical proportions, when communities downstream of 8,000, 10,000 or 14,000 properties are being held back by a community of 10 properties. Those communities downstream, in that eventuality, would already be both evacuated and in any case devastated. I agree with another of my constituents that that massively over-engineered standard is denying Pickering residents protection from repeated and frequent flooding. Will the Minister confirm that the return periods are based on data since the late 1980s? In that case, one in 10,000, or 235 cubic metres per second, can barely be described as an educated guess. On what basis were the figures reached? Pickering starts to flood at 12 cubic metres and seriously floods at 15, but in 2007 there was approximately 29 cubic metres. At 235 cubic metres—the one in 10,000 years risk—the town would be devastated and possibly extinct. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 contains no specific provisions for bund schemes of this type.

I turn next to the personal liability of reservoir engineers in the event of structural failings. It would be totally impractical to ask the two reservoir engineers to risk their personal liability, as it would result in hugely over-cautious, over-engineered and therefore over-priced structures. Liability needs to be shifted from the individual to a public body such as the Environment Agency—or, in my view, the Environment Agency’s political master, the Minister.

Well over £1 million has been wasted in Pickering, and it has produced nothing. We do not want more feasibility studies, consultants or modelling unless specifically needed for a bund. There is a scheme on the table, which everyone believed would work, and there is a great desire and the practical and political will to make it work.

I shall take this opportunity to put a number of questions to the Minister and to tell him of a number of possible solutions that I have identified. The “Slowing the Flow” project in Pickering has been hampered by the fact that although it is a demonstration project, and although part of it is already under way—I have mentioned the creating of buffer strips, the digging of ditches, the planting of trees and the blocking of moorland drains—I am told that no engineer has yet quantified the volume of water that will be retained. That is staggering, given the work that the Conservative party did in opposition, the fact that the Department recently produced its natural environment White Paper and the work undertaken by a number of water companies.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

rose—

[Miss McIntosh]

I wish to make progress.

“Slowing the Flow” was always a demonstration project. Implementation requires a major policy change by the Environment Agency, from highly expensive hard defences to affordable simplicity. We should keep things as simple and unstructured as possible, working with nature as closely as we can. However, that appears to be outside the engineers’ and the agency’s comfort zone. Where is the expertise? Is the answer in the White Paper? Is it already known by the water companies? If it does not exist, it should be developed. Is the Department minded to develop it?

The key to this debate is whether the Minister has the power to vary the 10,000 and 25,000 cubic metre thresholds. I understand that the reservoir guidance notes drafted by the Institution of Civil Engineers and agreed by the Department and the Environment Agency can be varied. Schedule 4 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 amends the Reservoirs Act 1975. New section A1(6) of the 1975 Act states:

“In making regulations under subsection (5) the Minister shall aim to ensure that a structure or area is treated as large under the regulations only if 10,000 or more cubic metres of water might be released as a result of the proximity or communication mentioned in that subsection.”

New section A1(7) of the 1975 Act states:

“The Minister may by order substitute a different volume of water for the volume specified in subsection (3) or (6).”

This is the thrust of my debate. The project could probably go ahead if the Minister were to be bold and use that power of variation. He could also instruct the Environment Agency to replace the dam at Mill lane with an automatic sluice. In the longer-term, he could ask Yorkshire Water to consider storing water underground through enlarged sewer pipes. He could even instruct the Environment Agency to compulsorily purchase one of the 10 properties at Newbridge. I have been reliably informed that the chances of finding extra money or exploring local authority options through the flood defence committee or through development gain are minimal.

This is an individual debate, and I am asking for the Minister’s urgent reply. I urge him to go back to the drawing board to find a similar scheme that can use the £1.3 million already on the table and re-examine the engineers’ judgment that category A status applies to the reservoir and the two bunds upstream. Most urgently, I ask him to waive the reservoir guidance notes by using his ministerial discretion and common sense, for which he is well known.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. On behalf of her constituents, she has raised the subject through every conceivable parliamentary mechanism, and I entirely understand why. I know that the matter is extremely important to her constituents. My hon. Friend was right to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited Pickering. She saw the project at first hand, and returned to the Department impressed with innovative ideas that involved a variety of mechanisms, particularly those that incorporated the natural environment as a flood alleviation and flood resilience asset. I note the presence of right hon. and hon. Members from other areas that face similar problems. The concept of holding back water is vital to a variety of communities and we want to ensure that our legislation supports common sense and is governed by proportionate rules.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked a number of questions, and I shall answer some of them before allowing others to intervene. She has submitted some written questions, and she will receive a reply in the next day or so. Today, she asked a question about the number of people who live below a reservoir risk. I understand that it is not 10 properties; the definition of a community in this instance is considered to be not less than about 10 persons who could be affected by a disastrous breach as a result of the under-provision of spillway capacity. That is the crux of the issue. The independent assessment said that the reservoir would require greater spillway capacity. To me and to other laymen, that does not sound a massive issue, but it increased the cost of the project way beyond what was possible.

Certain questions float around, such as what is a bund, and what is a reservoir? A flood defence bund is an embankment designed to prevent flood-water flowing from a watercourse and flooding adjacent land. The water is held up and then released through a controlled mechanism. We have to be compliant with the Reservoir Act 1975, which my hon. Friend identifies as the villain of the piece.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are reviewing the guidance. I do not know whether she has seen a copy of it, but I have. It is thick and highly technical. She is right that the independent assessors from the Institution of Civil Engineers who make these judgments are singularly liable. Once the asset is built, it will be the Government who are liable through the Environment Agency. At the moment, however, liability for the level of comfort that has to be achieved rests with individuals, so they want to get it right. There is undoubtedly an incentive for them to be precautionary, but the Government have to ensure that, in our desperate desire to see comfort given to communities such as Pickering, we do not rush measures through that in years to come, with the climate changing as we know it is, may pose catastrophic risks for many people.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given that this was a pilot project of national significance designed to find out what could be achieved through land management to reduce flooding—an issue of concern in many parts of the country, including my constituency—what implications will the shortcomings that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) rightly identified have for the evaluation of the pilot for other areas?

[Richard Benyon]

That is a key point, and I will come on to talk about how we are reviewing the situation, principally in Pickering, and the implications that it will have for other areas.

The Environment Agency is responsible for technical judgments on flow rates and volumes. The Institution of Civil Engineers is the expert, and it is vital that we have such organisations. The Environment Agency has assessed with the panel engineer the volume of water that needs to be stored. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made a point about powers that I may or may not have to do with variation. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the threshold has been reduced from 25,000 to 10,000 cubic metres. That is the area in which Ministers can apply variation, depending on the circumstances. However, that element of the Act has yet to be formally adopted. When it is, that variation will be in the power of Ministers. Under the current scheme, the Secretary of State and I do not have the power to vary the rates.

Fisheries

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Greatrex]

I share some of my hon. Friend’s frustrations about the lack of progress over many years. Often in European discussions, issues get traded off against each other; certain issues that should have been dealt with are not addressed, as other issues are seen as more pressing concerns. Fisheries have suffered as a result. Perhaps because I am slightly younger than my hon. Friend, or perhaps because I am a little naive in this respect, I am more hopeful than he is that the documentation from the Commission and some of the comments from the commissioner may give us cause to think that we have a serious chance of getting decent reform of the CFP on this occasion.

We will certainly have further discussions on this topic, but it is right to offer the Minister who will handle it in Europe our encouragement. We all understand that the negotiations will be very complex, as they will involve various different states and lots of different interests. One of the consequences of the increased interest in discards and other issues is that that has provoked the commissioner into saying some interesting things recently. While just saying things is not necessarily an indication of future action, there is now an opportunity, and we would be foolish not to try to take it.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Is it not noteworthy that the commissioner has referred to the sheer scale of the public outcry and demand for action in the United Kingdom, and does that not point to the need for us to sustain this admirable campaign—I congratulate all those who have been leading it—and to broaden it to other European countries?

[Tom Greatrex]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which I alluded to when talking about the power of the television documentary and the campaign.

I want to address the wider issue of CFP reform, as well as discards. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) must know a lot about the discards issue, as some of the fleets in her constituency have tackled it in innovative ways, such as through employing different nets. As that shows, fishing fleets have taken action, but we must address discards within the context of the CFP as a whole, and there are other important issues that will also need to be taken seriously in the negotiations.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talked about sustainability. That is not solely the preserve of scientists and conservationists; sustainability is also inherently in the interests of the fishing communities, but for far too long they have, effectively, been given perverse incentives not to act in a sustainable way. That is the fault not of the fishing fleets or the communities whose livelihoods depend on fishing, but of the regime. It therefore needs to form part of the changes to that regime.

A move towards multi-year quotas, which the report of the draft I read this morning seemed to suggest the Commission was proposing, is an important part of the changes needed, so I encourage the Minister to keep it on his agenda for the negotiations. It is frustrating that once a year in December people have to sit through the night to set the agenda for the next year, while industries and people—sometimes working in remote parts of the country—whose livelihoods depend on the industry are left not knowing what the position will be a few months hence. That does not help them to make long-term decisions about investment in their vessels or about how to pursue their economic interests. We hope that the July discussions will provide an opportunity to address this situation, because it is not healthy, sensible or sustainable.

Will the Minister bear it in mind that, as I said in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions earlier, we cannot have imposed on everybody an inflexible regime that is unable to adapt to local circumstances? There are a number of fisheries around the UK coast in which fleets fish for mixed catches, and a strict regime on them could have unintended adverse consequences. We have to ensure therefore that there is the appropriate flexibility for local management within whatever improvements are made to the CFP. I share others’ frustrations with the CFP over recent years. Reform remains necessary, and discards are part of the problem. It is heartening that this issue is getting much more attention than even a few months ago, but it is not the only issue. CFP reform and moving to multi-year quotas and greater sustainability will be in the interests of everybody involved in the industry. They are also in the interests of a number of my constituents who have recently discovered a shared interest in this issue because of the discards campaign. We need to ensure that this is at the forefront of the agenda in the negotiations that the Minister will take part in over the next few months. I sincerely wish him all the best in that, and I hope that many Members will support him in taking this agenda forward.

Neonicotinoid Pesticides

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)]

Over recent years, there has been an alarming worldwide reduction in bee numbers. In the UK, similar declines have occurred in wild pollinators such as bumblebees, moths, hoverflies and butterflies. The causes of those losses have been much debated.

When I wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month, Lord Henley replied to say that, in Britain at least, the combined factors included poor spring and summer weather, the varroa mite and other husbandry issues. My letter to the Department had been about the possibility that a group of systemic pesticides called neonicotinoids, and similar products, were contributing to the demise of bees and other pollinating insects. In response, Lord Henley said:

“In the UK, neo-nicotinoid insecticides are used primarily in commercial agriculture and horticulture production. Only a very small proportion is used in home garden products so the potential risk to bees, if any, from this type of product is negligible”.

He also assured me that the UK pesticide approval regime was robust and adequate.

I sought the debate today to urge the Government to be prepared to take a step back from that position and to look again at what is happening to the small creatures that contribute so much to our environment and food production. In particular, I ask them to examine, first, the growing weight of science that shows how neonicotinoid use and invertebrate losses are likely to be linked and, secondly, the evidence that the pesticide assessment regimes in Europe and the United States, as applied to systemics and the potential for environmental damage, are inadequate in identifying what is really going on.

In 2009 the British charity Buglife—The Invertebrate Conservation Trust conducted a review of all the available scientific literature about the effects of neonicotinoids and the Bayer product Imidacloprid in particular on non-target insect species. The report referred to 100 scientific studies and papers, and highlighted some real concerns that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and other pollinating insects. It also identified a particular problem of insects ingesting tiny doses on repeated visits to treated plants. The testing methodology of the Imidacloprid draft assessment report under EU regulations was not sufficiently sensitive to detect that.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate. He brings terrific expertise to the subject. Does he agree that, if there is any doubt about the adequacy of the regulatory regimes in Europe and the United States—and this is a classic instance—the precautionary principle should be applied? Given the crucial importance of bees and other insects in the ecosystem, it is a risk that we cannot afford to take.

[Martin Caton]

I go a long way with my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that the precautionary principle should be applied regardless of the degree of doubt; I shall come on to that a little later. However, if there is substantial doubt and good scientific evidence to give rise to doubt, the precautionary principle certainly should kick in.