Managing Flood Risk

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Caroline Lucas

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I agree with his advice to listen to experts; we have just had the privilege of listening to his expertise from his undersung time as Minister with responsibility for these issues.

I speak as one whose home has flooded; what I bring to the debate is the ability to speak as someone who has had that misfortune. I am slightly confused about the number of people who have been flooded in this round of utterly dreadful weather. The number of people flooded in Kent and Surrey around the Christmas period appears to be 7,500. Now we are being told that the number is about 7,000 for the whole country, although many hundreds of homes in various constituencies have been flooded since then. Will the Minister give us the numbers and say on what basis a comparison is being made between the 55,000 who were flooded in 2007 and the number who have been flooded this time?

The central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was that a great number of people owe the security of their homes to the measures that have been taken since 2007, and he was correct. Given how awful the weather has been, we should reflect that things could have been a great deal worse. In common with what other Members have seen, my experience of having been flooded has been that friends and neighbours have been absolutely terrific in rallying round. I am grateful to my immediate neighbours for the help that they afforded me and my family on Christmas eve and subsequently.

I also want to commend—I declare an interest, of course, as a flood victim—the exemplary behaviour of the insurance industry in my case and all the others I have seen. It appears to have stepped up to the plate and done what it was supposed to do. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) says from a sedentary position that it has not. Obviously, I would want to see that evidence and look forward to him making it clear. All I can do is reflect on my own experience and other reported cases. It is very easy to bash the insurance industry, but according to the evidence available to me it seems to be doing everything it should in the current circumstances.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury on the Flood Re legislation. I note that the Select Committee’s report states that there should be a requirement to detail exactly how the scheme will work, but I assure my hon. Friend that it has been an absolute lifeline for people in my position that the value of our principal asset has not been utterly destroyed. Many thousands of people are immensely grateful for the work he has done in bringing that scheme to the starting gate.

I also want to place on record my thanks to the Government for the measures they have taken during the course of this crisis. The £5,000 grant to make my house, along with all the other houses that have been flooded, more resilient is immensely sensible. I want to take some measures, but they are plainly not insured so the insurance company will not be able to address them. The grant is, therefore, of immense help. I am certain that my reaction will be mirrored by everyone else who has been flooded. It is a really sensible, helpful proposal by the Government. From what I have seen of how people can apply for the scheme, it is being managed appropriately. Council tax relief for people who are no longer able to occupy their homes is also entirely reasonable.

I want to make two central points, one of which picks up on those made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She spoke of the need for us as a country to invest sensibly in flood protection and I agree entirely with her. The Pitt review was right and the scale of our investment in flood defence needs, to be frank, a step change. It has been said that an increase of £20 million a year is needed over the course of 25 years to get to the right level. Given how fast the climate seems to be changing, however, I do not think that is enough. We need to get to the level of expenditure envisaged by the Pitt review rather quicker than the 25 years he recommended when he wrote the report. That seems to be self-evident.

As a number of hon. Members have suggested, this is a sensible investment measure because it will result in huge savings. We ought to look at the expected 8:1 return currently being examined by the Environment Agency with regard to investment schemes and the cost-benefit analysis. That does not seem right to me.

I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion on some matters on which we have co-operated, but I am afraid that I buy Lord Lawson’s general approach. There is a limited amount that the United Kingdom can do on its own to address global climate change. We have to try to carry the other nations of the world with us in order to do what we can to try to improve the climate, but I agree with his general proposition that limiting our ability to grow our economy and to have the wealth to create the protection schemes would be the wrong approach. If we hobble our economy by trying to reduce climate change through occasionally economically illiterate energy schemes, we will simply not be able to afford flood defences or have the money to defend ourselves against the consequences. It is also highly unlikely—we would be extremely lucky if this happened—that we would be able to carry the Indians, the Chinese and the rest of the world with us towards the standards we will deliver in Europe.

[Caroline Lucas]

It is precisely the people who seem to think that investing in the green economy is somehow a distraction from getting out of our economic difficulties who are economically illiterate. If we put resources into the green economy—insulating every home and properly investing in renewable energies—it will be good for the economy. The green economy is the one bit of the economy that is doing pretty well, so it is a false dichotomy.

[Mr Blunt]

It is not, if Governments of all hues are tempted to decide which particular subsidy they give to which particular scheme, regardless of their environmental merits in continuing to reduce greenhouse gases. That is what we have seen: when we are in positions of Executive authority, we are all tempted to have our pet schemes to deliver. We should always look to reduce the totality of our contribution to carbon change, consistent with what can be delivered around the rest of the world, so that the whole world acts together. We should not unfairly handicap ourselves, but try to carry the rest of the world with us, and allow the market to make a sensible decision about how we address humanity’s contribution to climate change.

In his extremely good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) elucidated all the very sensible measures that ought to be taken by any community facing flood risk. I can only commend his speech to other hon. Members and to all those interested in this field.

From my experience, I know that the only way my home can be protected is if the schemes happening around Gatwick airport, the area from which the water comes down the River Mole to me, are decent floodwater storage schemes. They need to be properly designed by the Environment Agency to ensure that the water is stored and not simply poured off the second runway—God help us if we get it—and sent downstream to flood communities living below Gatwick.

I know that the Environment Agency has taken a kicking from many quarters, but I must say that from what I have seen it appears to be the best reservoir—that is the right term—of expertise for our country. We should support and use it, and I commend the work of the officials I have met. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury nodding: if he is nodding, I am pretty satisfied that that judgment is right.

Having declared my interest, I conclude by thanking the Government for the way in which they have managed the crisis over the past two or three months. The proposals that they have put in place, which are inevitably for the short and medium-term, are what I would expect the Cobra co-ordinating mechanism to do in the circumstances. However, there is a long-term issue to address: the scale of our country’s investment in flood defence is not adequate, as was identified between 2007 and 2009, and I suggest that we need to address it faster than we currently propose to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I hope that my hon. Friend will ultimately judge us on the effect we have both on crime and reoffending figures. When people are in the justice system, the effect on them should be when they leave it they are less likely to offend than when they came in.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

16. What plans he has to use restorative justice to divert more children and young people away from the criminal justice system.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

That is not strictly within the terms of what is proposed here. The effect would be to criminalise those who are squatting in residential premises and to create a new offence. As a first step we intend to limit the new offence to squatting in residential buildings. We consider that this option strikes the best balance. It will protect those who are likely to suffer most from squatting—those whose homes are taken over by squatters.

I shall turn now to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I know that he is a supporter of the campaign group Squatters Action for Secure Homes, and I also know that he agrees with the arguments put forward by homelessness charities, such as Crisis, that criminalising squatting will impact on homeless people who squat. I fully understand why he tabled the amendments, but I will take this opportunity to explain why I do not agree with them.

On amendment (a), many squatters claim that they do not cause any harm to anybody because they look for empty properties to occupy. In the responses to our recent consultation exercise, that point was made by squatters and squatters groups, but respondents who made that argument were missing one rather important point: the houses are not theirs to occupy. There are many reasons why a house might be left empty for more than six months without any steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building. For example, somebody might decide to do charitable work in another country for a year, or they might visit their second home during the summer months only. It is the owner’s prerogative to leave the house empty in those circumstances. To say that property owners or occupiers should not be protected by the criminal law in these circumstances would be unjust and it would considerably weaken our proposed new offence.

Consultation responses highlighted a concern about the number of properties that are left empty on a long-term basis. They argued that such properties can crumble into disrepair and might be seen as a blight on the local neighbourhood. But permitting squatters to occupy derelict, crumbling, unsafe houses cannot be the answer. We are doing a number of things to encourage absent owners to make better use of their properties.

We want to increase the number of empty homes that are brought back into use as a sustainable way of increasing the overall supply of housing, and to reduce the perception of neglect that can blight neighbourhoods. Reducing the number of empty homes will also help to reduce the incidence of squatting. That is why we have announced £100 million of capital funding within the affordable homes programme to tackle problematic empty homes—that is properties that are likely to remain empty without extra direct financial assistance from the Government. This programme will deliver at least 3,300 affordable homes by March 2015, as well as engaging local communities in dealing with empty homes in their area.

Amendment (c) is designed to exempt squatters from the offence if they occupy residential buildings before the date of commencement. Let me be clear that we have no plans to punish people retrospectively. If they have squatted in the past but are no longer squatting when the offence comes into force, the offence will not apply. However, we would be creating a significant loophole if we exempted squatters who initially entered the building as a trespasser in the run-up to commencement even though after commencement of the offence they remain in the building as a trespasser, they know or ought to know that they are a trespasser and that they are living there or intend to live there. Such an occupation would be no less painful for the property owners concerned.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and others are concerned that the new offence might penalise vulnerable, homeless people who squat in run-down residential properties. One of the reasons they remain in this state is, as I said, because the owners cannot get in to renovate them. It would be much better for us to introduce an offence that is capable of protecting law-abiding property owners and occupiers on the one hand, while working with other Government Departments, local authorities, the police and homelessness charities to continue to address the root causes of homelessness and to mitigate any impacts the new offence might have on the levels of rough sleeping.

We are prioritising spending on homelessness prevention, investing £400 million over the next four years, with the homelessness grant being maintained at the 2010-11 level. For the first time, we have also brought together eight Departments through the ministerial working group on homelessness to tackle the complex causes of homelessness. The group published its first report “Vision to end rough sleeping” in July 2011, which sets out joint commitments to tackle homelessness and to ensure that nobody has to spend more than one night out on our streets—“No Second Night Out”. This includes actions to prevent homelessness for those people without a stable home who may be at risk of rough sleeping. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It feels as though we are in a different world when the Minister describes these as measures to tackle homelessness and when one considers everything that the Government have been doing with their housing benefit cuts and with their cuts in shared room rate, which organisations say will cause thousands more people to become homeless. Is he not cognisant of those arguments being put forward very forcefully by those charities?

[Mr Blunt]

I absolutely support the measures being brought forward by my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is absolutely right. One cannot but be impressed by his huge determination in chairing the ministerial group to address this issue. It is the other side of the equation, and I hope that it addresses the amendments and answers the question from the hon. Member for Islington North.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about linking up with the utility providers. It is already an offence under the Theft Act 1968 to use electricity without authority and the maximum penalty for that is five years’ imprisonment.

I hope that the House will welcome this move to protect home owners and lawful occupiers of residential property from squatters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

This agenda has to apply to women as well as to men. The sad fact is that, overall, too many of our prisoners are under-occupied, whether women or men, and the same attention must be paid to the women’s estate as to the men’s estate.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

3. What his policy is on the right of overseas victims of alleged human rights abuses by UK multinational companies to access justice in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

There are already a number of schemes to encourage foreign national prisoners to go home and serve their sentences there. As I said in the last Justice questions, we will have to work very hard in this respect. I have noted the comment of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee about the fact that some 700 people in the UKBA are working on it, which gives some idea of the priority that it has. I assure my hon. Friend and all hon. and right hon. Members that that level of priority will continue. We need to save the money that we should not be spending on imprisoning foreigners in our jails.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Following the revelations at the weekend that some quite shocking restraint methods are authorised in the “Physical Control in Care” manual for use by staff in secure training centres for children, will the Secretary of State introduce an explicit ban on corporal punishment in secure training centres and other youth offender institutions? Will he establish a public inquiry, chaired by a member of the judiciary, to establish the compatibility of practices in secure training centres with article 3 of the European convention on human rights?