Flooding

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

No, not at this time. [Interruption.] I have given way relatively generously, so I do not think I should be criticised for saying no on one occasion.

In total, 290 shovel-ready flood defence projects were cancelled and 966 delayed as a result of those decisions. Appallingly, these appear to have included 13 schemes along the Thames and 67 in the south-west. Does not that highlight the cost of the Government’s misguided approach? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also cut more than 40% from his Department’s budget for domestic climate change initiatives last year. Therefore, just 0.7% or £17.2million of the Environment Department’s budget is now dedicated to preparing or adapting Britain for the impact of climate change, and his is the lead Department. Of course, we only know this thanks to an freedom of information request, because the Secretary of State sought to disguise the cut by lumping it in with the funding to meet our obligations to the international climate fund.

Before these floods hit, Ministers were about to make yet another ill thought through decision that would have reduced the country’s ability to cope with major flood incidents. In addition to the 600 Environment Agency staff lost since 2010, we know from leaked briefings that a further 557 flooding staff were due to be cut this year. The Prime Minister has said that

“those aren’t plans that are going to be put in place”.

Yet it is far from clear whether this means that there will be no further job losses in the agency, or whether the commitment relates only to those working directly on flood protection. Neither is it clear for how long this commitment remains valid. I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify the situation and give us some further information on this.

There have been some disgraceful attempts by Ministers to place the blame for some of these decisions at the door of the Environment Agency, not least by the Communities Secretary himself. Yet, as the chairman of the Environment Agency has made clear,

“a limit on the amount we can contribute to any individual scheme, determined by a benefit-to-cost rule imposed on us by the Treasury”

was placed on the agency.

I hope that the Communities Secretary will take the opportunity to confirm that the cost-benefit ratio rules imposed on flood defence schemes will be reviewed. I hope that he will also accept, in hindsight, that Ministers should not have sought to evade responsibility for their own decisions.

The Pitt review set out 92 separate recommendations, all but one for the Government, and significant progress on their implementation was being made at the time of the last election, yet when this Government came to office in 2010, some recommendations that had been implemented were reversed. The Cabinet committee on improving the country’s ability to deal with flooding and the national resilience forum were both abolished. Then in January 2012, the Government published what was entitled a “final progress report”, despite 46 recommendations not having been fully implemented. We urgently need clarity on the progress—or lack of it—that has been made since January 2012. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider his previous refusal to agree to our call for a new update to be brought before Parliament.

The Government have demonstrated a complete lack of urgency in securing the legal basis for the proposed flood reinsurance scheme. Thanks to three years of inaction from Ministers, this scheme will not be in place until 2015 at the earliest. As we have warned throughout the passage of the Water Bill, which is still being considered in another place, the scheme is deeply flawed. In Committee, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of this House voted down Labour amendments to improve the Bill. Those amendments included requiring Ministers to consult the Committee on Climate Change on the number of properties that might need to be added to the scheme in future; incentivising owners of at-risk properties to invest in flood protection measures; enabling people to search whether or not a property is included in the scheme; and establishing an appeal mechanism for those excluded—all measures opposed by the Government.

A balance has to be struck, of course, between the cost of the levy on other households and the scope of the scheme. However, the significant number of exemptions from the scheme continues to be of real concern and controversy, not least for tenants and leaseholders. In the light of the recent floods and the fact that the Water Bill has not completed its passage through both Houses, I hope that the Minister might consider agreeing to cross-party talks on those issues. It is vital that we ensure that the Flood Re insurance scheme is fit for purpose over the long term.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to conclude my remarks.

I hope that the Government will also consider the call by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the national consensus on climate change to be rebuilt. The events of the past few weeks have shown that that is now a matter of national security, with people’s homes, businesses and livelihoods under threat from extreme weather. All the evidence points to that happening more frequently in future.

Before the last election, we were edging towards that consensus. The Stern report set out clearly the catastrophic impact on our economy of a failure to act on climate change. The Committee on Climate Change and carbon budgets was established. Targets to reduce emission were set. Investment in flood protection was rising. The leader of the Conservative party was hugging huskies and pledging to lead the greenest Government ever.

Just three years later, however, the progress that was being made appears to have stalled and the Prime Minister is allegedly wandering around Downing street talking of his wish to be rid of all this “green crap”. Tellingly, he has appointed an Environment Secretary who talks up the alleged benefits of climate change and refuses to be briefed on the subject by the Government’s scientific advisers.

We urgently need to re-establish the consensus on the threat to the UK of climate change. The science is clear. The evidence is overwhelming. The Committee on Climate Change warns that current planned funding will

“result in around 250,000 more households becoming exposed to a significant risk of flooding by 2035”.

These floods must be a wake-up call: a wake-up call on whether dedicating just 0.7% of DEFRA’s budget to climate change mitigation and adaptation makes sense ; a wake-up call on the folly of ignoring the impact of climate change in the Food Re insurance scheme; and a wake-up call on the consequences of cutting investment in flood protection. For the communities that have suffered such appalling flooding in recent weeks, that is the very least they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

rose—

[Mr Pickles]

If the hon. Ladies will bear with me, I want to talk about the challenge of climate change and then I will give way.

The same approach should apply to climate change. There are certainly man-made causes to the recent flooding and the main cause needs man-made management. Policies on dredging, development and even tree planting directly affect our landscape, but the weather is a factor in itself. The debate on climate is highly charged and polarised between sceptics and zealots, but the conclusions should not be. We know that Britain’s weather and climate is fickle. If Britain was to have a national symbol, it would undoubtedly be the umbrella. Any expectation that the Met Office could have predicted the amount and severity of that rain is simply unreasonable. It does not have a crystal ball, despite improvements in predictions.

The Met Office still does not definitively know whether climate change contributed to the recent weather patterns. This might be a short-term trend or a long-term one, but I would simply say this: the risk is there to our nation of a changing intensity in Britain’s weather. Given that risk, we should prepare. It would be irrational not to insure ourselves against that risk, and if there is a long-term trend, we should adapt to such change, as my noble Friend Lord Lawson has advocated.

“Just as science and technology has given us the evidence to measure the danger of climate change, so it can help us find safety from it.”

That seems a very reasonable statement and I commend it to the House. It is the view of a former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and I think he spoke very wisely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss flooding today, because 37,7000 homes in my constituency are at risk. I saw the pain, misery and damage caused by flooding when we were hit in Hull in June 2007. At that time, 8,600 households were affected, and 6,300 people had to move into temporary accommodation, including 1,400 who were accommodated in caravans for months afterwards as their homes were dried out, cleaned up and repaired, often after lengthy dealings with insurers.

I feel very sorry for all those people who are going through the trauma of flooding now. Until people go through it, they do not understand the awfulness of it, and the problems do not end when the floodwaters have receded. The anxiety, distress and depression will carry on for those families for months and years. I have met children who told me that they became anxious when they saw the heavy rain, because they thought that they might have to leave their homes again, or that they would not be able to get to school. I pay tribute to the National Flood Forum for the support that it offers to families after the floodwaters have receded.

We all recognise the importance of investment in flood defences. After the 2007 floods, I remember the Liberal Democrats, who were in control of the council in Hull, complaining that the Labour Government’s increased flood defence spending was not enough. However, it has now been confirmed that flood defence investment has fallen under this Lib Dem-Tory coalition. With estimates for the clear-up and repair costs from the recent flooding running at £1 billion, those cuts look like a classic example of a false economy.

In December 2013, an estimated 260 homes and businesses in Hull were flooded again following the east coast tidal surge. I want to ask the Government some questions about their response to the recent floods, and their provision of discretionary assistance to homes and businesses hit by that flooding. Initially, there seemed to be lots of Cobra meetings but very little action, whereas in June 2007, Hull heard about the extra flood aid in just two weeks and we had an early visit from the Prime Minister as well. After the December east coast tidal surge, it took two months, and the playing fields of Eton to be flooded, before Hull heard about the extra £5,000 help for homes and businesses.

Why does the current support for householders go only to home owners and not to tenants? As I understand it, the money has to be spent on flood resilience measures. Will the Minister explain how that will be checked? Will councils also be able to get money for the properties they own? Can every householder pool money to pay for more substantial flood resilience measures, where a local community wants to do that?

There seemed, again, to be confusion about whether Hull businesses would be covered by the business support scheme and about whether there is a cap on the business support that will be given. The guidance suggests that grants should be about £2,500 and that more than £5,000 should not be given out. Several large manufacturing firms in Hull were flooded, with expensive equipment destroyed. I understand that the council will be allocating the funds, so will it have discretion to offer more help, especially to those types of company that may easily be able to relocate internationally? In addition, why have the Government not applied for European Union assistance for flood-hit communities?

I have been raising and discussing the issue of flood insurance for many years. Last June, the Government finally announced the Flood Re scheme that is to replace the previous Government’s statement of principles. As we know, Flood Re excludes, retrospectively, homes completed since January 2009.

[Chris Ruane]

Does my hon. Friend know why it took three years for this Government to settle the Flood Re scheme?

[Diana Johnson]

I do not know why, but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. Obviously, the statement of principles ran out last summer and it has had to have a temporary extension until the new Flood Re scheme comes into place in 2015, even though this needed to be sorted out as quickly as possible.

Let me return to the issue of the exclusions. Leaseholders are excluded from the scheme, as are council tenants and small businesses, including people who run a bed and breakfast from their home. Landlords are not covered, even where there is a jointly owned freehold with each flat owner as a leaseholder. It is not clear whether tenants wanting contents insurance will be covered. There is no answer from the Government on the position of home owners or builders who acted in good faith, following all relevant planning guidelines and Environment Agency advice, but find themselves with homes that will now not attract home insurance cover under the Flood Re scheme because they have been built since 2009. Under Flood Re, a home built on 31 December 2008 will be covered whereas a house next door that was built on 1 January 2009 will not be. The scheme seems very arbitrary, and it is also not clear whether Flood Re covers the surface water flooding which we had a problem with in Hull in 2007.

Worse still, one part of the Government does not seem to know what the other part of the Government is doing. The Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government are promoting their Help to Buy scheme heavily in Kingswood in my constituency, an area hit by flooding in 2007; large Help to Buy posters are plastered everywhere. The problem is that the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are also signalling that those thousands of new homes being built and sold under their Help to Buy scheme should not have been built in the first place and will not be covered by Flood Re. The Government are getting themselves into real difficulty on this, and the people buying homes under the Help to Buy scheme at the moment will be shocked to know the position the Government are putting them in.

Clearly, there are some flood-risk areas where building should not happen—areas where there is coastal erosion and outlying areas that will not be helped by flood defence infrastructure.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady has been consistent in raising the issue of the Help to Buy scheme. The scheme operates across the country, and the choice of where to buy a property and on what terms to do so is up to the person who buys it. Of course, the developer will also have gone through a process of developing it. The Government are not encouraging and actively pushing people into buying those particular homes; people are choosing to buy them and use that scheme. So perhaps she needs to give a little clarification on what she is accusing the Government of.

[Diana Johnson]

I do not know whether it is parliamentary to say this, but I am gobsmacked by that response. I thought the whole aim and purpose of the Government’s scheme was to encourage people to buy a home. It just so happens that 90% of my city is below sea level and on a floodplain, so someone who buys a property in Hull will probably be faced with it not being in the Flood Re scheme, yet the Government are still encouraging people to buy homes there. I am grateful for that at least—they have not abandoned Hull completely—but there is a problem with their Flood Re scheme.

The National Association of Home Builders estimates that 5 million homes around the country will not be covered by the Flood Re scheme, and the insurance firm Hiscox has in the past few weeks called for the deal to be made universal. As I have said, Hull, 90% of which is a flood risk, is currently protected, but it could be better protected still with more adequate investment and by ensuring access to affordable insurance cover. With that in place, Hull and other flood-risk areas have a viable economic future with a functioning property market and a strong business sector.

With climate change leading to rising water levels and more frequent volatile weather, the scientific advice is that flooding will occur more regularly in a larger proportion of the country. This small country cannot write off the major towns, cities and areas of farmland that are now at risk of more regular flooding. Yes, there are limits on what we can afford to do, but we need to think too about the limits on what we can afford not to do.

The free market and little England approach does not equip us to face these issues. Climate change deniers such as those in the UK Independence party also do not help. They want to wreck Hull’s hopes for wind turbine jobs and send them abroad. Some of its members even appear to hold the view that same-sex marriage is responsible for the flooding.

Let us turn a major problem into an opportunity for economic growth. We could invest in flood defence infrastructure and support renewable energy with a balanced energy policy so that we meet our future energy needs in a way that also combats climate change.