Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Ind)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
An option to move Parliament out of the Palace of Westminster to a new purpose-built building was included in the restoration and renewal pre-feasibility study of 2012. The House of Commons Commission reviewed that study in October that year and decided to rule the option out, agreeing that no further analysis would be undertaken on it. The House of Lords Commission took a similar view, and that commitment was reaffirmed by the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster in 2016, and more recently, in resolutions of both Houses in 2018.
Mr Shuker
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s answer, but when we rebuilt this Chamber, Churchill said:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]
Given just how broken our political culture has now been demonstrated to be, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to take a bold approach and move into a modern Parliament in one of the great cities of the UK?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary question; I might have expected him to call for Parliament to be moved to Luton, but he did not. Clearly a decision has been taken. Some of the things that he would like might be possible for the temporary Chamber—that matter that was raised earlier—and I hope that he will want to make a written submission pressing for that Chamber to be used to trial and test some of the things that would improve our democracy.
Water Industry
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your generosity in allowing me to speak in this debate. I apologise for having missed the opening speech because of parliamentary business that I could not avoid.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). I think that he and I will agree about one thing: the botched privatisation of the late 1980s and early ’90s has led us to a wholly undesirable situation. However, we are where we are. As someone who, in the past couple of years, has had responsibility on the Opposition Front Bench for the issue of water, I have watched the situation very closely. I was struck today by the news that this Government are now apparently taking water affordability incredibly seriously. There has been a damascene conversion—or perhaps a Dunfermline and West Fife conversion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has joined the Front-Bench team and is clearly getting far better results than I ever did in the role that he has the privilege of holding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to this debate and hate to interrupt his complimentary remarks about his hon. Friend. However, following what Government Members have said about the Water Bill and what we want to do on pricing, it is fair to say that we have been working on this issue for a very long time. I think he will find that any announcements in recent days that have come from sources on the Opposition side might be a little new to the debate.
Gavin Shuker
What a fantastic set-up for the speech I am about to give, which is about the Government’s record in the past few years. I freely accept that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Government at that time, but he obviously voted on many of the issues that I want to talk about.
It is crucial that we in this House have a proper understanding of the impact that the Bill that is being sold to us will have on the consumer bills that are being levied on many of our constituents right now. Let us be clear: no one was talking about water affordability or Government action to reform the water industry to deliver for customers and not just for shareholders until the Leader of the Opposition gave his living standards speech in Brighton back in September.
Richard Benyon
I hesitate to rise, because I could just sit here and enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He and I had endless discussions about affordability when he was in his Front-Bench role, so he knows that he need only read the water White Paper to see that we were concerned about that issue, and he knows that the underlying truth of the Water Bill is that, in order to keep bills low, we need to make sure that we have an industry fit for the future, which is all about affordability and protecting our constituents. He also knows, therefore, that it is ridiculous to suggest that this issue has appeared just in the past few days.
Gavin Shuker
The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate defence of his own record in post.
Let us look at some of the specific measures on which this Government had the opportunity to work and legislate but deliberately chose not to do so. First, there is bad debt. I was interested to read a copy of the Secretary of State’s letter to the water companies—sent out today, curiously enough, purely coincidentally—which talked about bad debt. I thought, “Fantastic! At last this Government have adopted the right position on bad debt.” Each household has to pay £15 or so because some people cannot pay and will not pay, and that money is dumped on the bills of consumers who step up and do pay.
On energy bills, is it not interesting that there is a provision that requires landlords to give companies their tenants’ details so that they can reclaim the money? On reading the letter, I thought, “Fantastic. At last the Government have responded to the Opposition’s calls to make the water situation analogous with that of energy.” However, the letter only makes a firm threat to look at the issue in more detail if the companies themselves do not voluntarily make progress on the provision.
My position and that of my party is clear: bad debt as a result of those people who will not or cannot pay dumps an additional cost on every household, so it would make sense to implement the provision. The Government could have taken that action. We made the case for it, but they have had no interest in it until now.
That is not the only issue. Government Members and the press have today mentioned the social tariff. I was the lead Opposition Member on the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee. We sought to amend the Bill so that every water company operating in the UK had to do one simple thing, namely offer a social tariff to those people who find it hard to pay their bills or who find themselves in a situation where they cannot pay for the service provided. The Government chose to vote down that proposal and Government Members voted against it. Instead, they favoured a voluntary approach: if water companies wanted to introduce a social tariff, they could. It is amazing how few water companies have actually done so.
George Hollingbery
I think I am right in saying that the previous Labour Government were in power for 13 years and I am struggling to add up the number of water regulation Bills they introduced during that time. If the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me, I will take a round number.
Gavin Shuker
Why not start with the three reviews that led to the water White Paper? The Pitt, Walker and Cave reviews looked directly at competition and were conducted in the five years before we exited government and this Administration came in. They laid the groundwork and contained radical ideas that would have resulted in better provisions for water affordability. They would have put in place a framework to deal with the issue in its entirety. The water White Paper, which resulted from those reviews, was quite good, but that has left many of us asking: why is the Water Bill so washed out?
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I think I am right in saying that it was only under the Labour Government that water bills actually fell. Is that correct?
Gavin Shuker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we look at the price review periods since privatisation, we will see that water bills came down in real terms during only one of them and that was under the previous Labour Government. On the price review process, my hunch is that this Government believe that the water companies will read the signals coming from hard-pressed consumers and come in at RPI plus 0 or RPI minus 1 in the next price review period and claim it as their victory, but let us be clear: getting a sustained reduction in water costs requires action from this Government.
Andrew Percy
We have moved on a little, but the hon. Gentleman has graciously given way. He is doing a good job of reading the Labour brief and trying to pretend that all of a sudden it is interested in people’s bills. On the Pitt review, is he suggesting that it was somehow planned by the Labour Government, or did it come about because I and my constituents were all under about 2 feet of water for a long time?
Gavin Shuker
Intense flooding has major implications and climate change means that it will happen more regularly, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the previous Labour Government were in some way wrong to review the situation and flood defences. He was not the MP for his area at the time, but he knows that the flooding was devastating. If he wants proper action on ensuring that his constituents will be protected against the next bout of flooding, he should support our efforts to amend the Water Bill to make sure that there is a proper, workable Flood Re solution for flooding insurance. He mentions the Labour brief. I humbly point out to him that for the past few years I have been writing the brief.
Charlie Elphicke
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the last Labour Government did nothing on social tariffs?
Gavin Shuker
No, that is not the case. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 created the legislative framework for that measure.
I want to talk about some of the measures that have been trumpeted as the solution to bring about water affordability and to stop the rising tide of householders who are finding themselves in water poverty or unable to pay their water bills. The approach of the Water Bill is entirely the wrong way around. It is interesting to hear Government Members say that the only answer is greater competition. I accept that retail business competition could be a good way of reducing water usage. That has made a profound difference north of the border. That is why we have supported it continually. The idea came out of the Cave review.
However, at a time when many parts of the UK are much more water-scarce than other parts of the continent and even parts of Africa, it is short-sighted to think that that idea will work without considering abstraction reform as well. The Government have chosen to punt that issue into the 2020s—until 2025—for the next Government to look at. If we do not deal with scarcity in many parts of the country, there will be a major problem. Instead, the Government have looked for a number of measures that will shake up the industry and make them look pro-reform, but that will not necessarily tackle the issue of abstraction.
There is an idea that the only answer to the problem of some parts of the country being water-rich and others water-poor is to build pipelines. I remind the House that 2% of the country’s energy usage already goes on water. There is a major carbon cost to that idea. If people do not believe that that would end up on people’s bills, they are wrong.
Alec Shelbrooke
Just to clarify, did the hon. Gentleman say that we need a national water grid to move water around or that we do not?
Gavin Shuker
I am happy to clarify that. I was saying that the idea of a national water grid is stillborn, purely on the basis that the carbon costs make it too difficult. If we accept the premise for that idea, surely what we need is a similar level of investment in water efficiency. We must have a similar amount of foresight on how we will get by with less in the many water-stressed areas. The south-east continues to grow and water is becoming more scarce.
Unless there is proper leadership on that issue, things will become very difficult. Big concrete, in-the-ground solutions are not the right approach. There is a need for additional water capacity, but we need to consider the issues. I say humbly that the Government have a green deal, but where is the blue deal? Where is the deep thinking about what we need to do?
Another area where the Government have been caught napping is the structure of the industry. After privatisation, a number of companies emerged that were listed on the UK stock market. There was then a shift in the industry towards foreign ownership. Today, the majority of the industry is owned by private equity firms. At the same time, dividends and water bills have continued to rise. Unison has done some fantastic research that has tracked the nature of the industry. However, it is not just Unison that has raised concerns. Jonson Cox, the chair of Ofwat, has said that there needs to be greater clarity in many of the difficult accounting explanations. I hope that Ofwat will continue to pursue that issue.
One issue on which the Government could take action is Eurobonds, and the practice whereby water companies effectively borrow from arm’s length bodies of themselves at greater levels of interest, which is obviously favourable on their balance sheet. The Government consulted on that issue and decided to do nothing, yet it is a major reason why the water industry is skewed the way it is. If we want to drill down and ensure that the benefit of the reforms goes not only to shareholders but to customers and households, the Government must consider that issue again.
Finally, I want to mention social responsibility for water companies. In January 2012 I went to a fantastic research facility at the university of Leeds called Water at Leeds. I gave a speech in which I laid out Labour’s response to the water White Paper and the forthcoming legislation. I also talked about the consensus that exists on water. Both parties in government, the industry and customers have bought into the idea of a largely monopolised, yet privately owned, privately run and privately debt-financed water industry, but that consensus could break down if action is not taken.
Today, 72% of people believe that water would be better off nationalised. That is a massive flashing red light to the water industry that it needs to take action, and to the Government if they believe that that should not be the policy that passes through. I believe one way of doing that would be to have a social responsibility clause in the Water Bill that lays out clearly and benchmarks what each water company is doing in terms of social responsibility. That would include the companies saying how they manage their tax affairs in a way that is easy to understand and has clarity, rather than things being hidden away on the balance sheet. They would also mention their responsibility to their broader constituencies, and whether they employ apprentices and are investing in R and D, as Cave mentioned in his report. Let us look at the water companies and instead of saying that some have a good story to tell, let us try to raise them all up to the level of the very best.
Those five areas—bad debt, social tariff, abstraction reform, Eurobonds and social responsibility—would in themselves create a coherent basis for tackling water affordability and water scarcity. I humbly remind the House that despite all the hype of today and what the Minister may say, this Government have looked those challenges squarely in the eye and dodged each one.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker; I welcome you to the Chair. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity—I lobbied for it, so I am one of those responsible for securing the debate—and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for introducing the debate. I apologise for being unable to hear his contribution—I was detained—but I have been present for much of the debate. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who has inherited the Water Bill. His predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), said that this issue has occupied him for the past three years. I thank him for always being courteous and engaging, not least on matters relating to Thames Water.
I received an encouraging piece of information a few weeks ago, as did other hon. Members who represent the Thames Water area. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said a moment ago, the provisional view of Ofwat is that it is minded to reject the latest application from Thames Water to increase prices. Given that we had previously been told by Thames Water that it expected to increase prices not just next year but every year by approximately £60 to £80 per household, to fund the Thames tunnel, that is a welcome relief. I understand that Ofwat has not made its final decision, but I hope it will confirm it this week. My constituents would be encouraged by that news.
It was also encouraging to hear the Environment Secretary this week tell water companies to be mindful that price increases should be imposed only where necessary, and remind them to introduce special tariffs for hard-pressed households. That takes me back to debates at the end of the previous Parliament when my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) tabled an amendment to the Flood and Water Management Bill to allow for social tariffs, which had never before existed in the water industry. There had been social tariffs in the energy industry, but not in the water industry. The Act became law on 8 April 2010—probably the last piece of legislation to sneak over the line before the general election. Since then, the Government have been positive about encouraging individuals to consider how they can get help with their water bills and ensuring that water companies introduce social tariffs. Since the Liberal Democrats have been in the Government, guidance on social tariffs was issued in June 2012 and water companies have been able to introduce their own social tariffs since 2013. I credit Thames Water with welcoming and responding to that opportunity.
Many families are often hard pressed by the cost of their water bills. For years, I and my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in Cornwall and the south-west campaigned for a reduction in south-west water bills, but the Government have now dealt with that and, in a welcome move, have legislated to reduce bills in the south-west.
For the benefit of those who follow our debates, I should add that there are two other schemes that provide help. The first is the WaterSure scheme, funded by water customers, which provides financial help to householders with three or more children under the age of 19, if on a water meter and in receipt of certain benefits—people should check which benefits and whether they qualify—and for those without children but in receipt of benefits and with a medical condition requiring excessive water use. That is important. Not everybody knows about it, but they should, particularly those struggling who might qualify. The other scheme, Water Direct, run by the Department for Work and Pensions, helps householders in receipt of certain benefits to manage debt with water companies. Under that scheme, the DWP acts as a broker to help make arrangements.
Simon Hughes
Before I give way, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he did from the Opposition Front Bench and for his contribution a few minutes ago, which I heard and enjoyed.
Gavin Shuker
That is incredibly generous of the right hon. Gentleman. I am just checking I am not dead—people rarely speak nicely of each other in the House, so perhaps I am.
I wanted to be helpful, actually. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that neither of those quite good schemes is well known, partly because they operate regionally? In other words, there is no clearly identifiable social tariff scheme that the entire water industry can point to—although I appreciate that WaterSure is a national scheme—and there are patches of coverage, which is one reason why all water companies should have a social tariff.
Simon Hughes
I apologise if I phrased my remarks as if to suggest that the hon. Gentleman was the former Member for Luton South. He is clearly still the current Member, as I know, not least because when I last went to Luton on official business—to watch Millwall beat Luton Town—he was there to buy me a drink afterwards. I was very grateful—actually, I cannot remember whether I bought him a drink or he bought me one, but anyway it was a very nice pub, and I recommend it. Luton has good breweries, beer and pubs. But we, as the away team, were very well received by our hosts. [Interruption.] He wants me to stop rubbing it in. I apologise.
One of the dates in my diary this week, besides this debate, was that for making representations to the public inquiry into the Thames tideway tunnel. The latest date for written representations was yesterday, which was when I submitted mine. For my constituents and many others, not just in London but in the whole Thames Water region, it remains a live issue whether Thames Water’s current plans for the tunnel are the right ones, given the alternative ways of dealing with sewage in London, and the question whether the route is the right one. Obviously, the route will impact significantly on constituencies such as mine. For example, a big site on Chambers wharf is proposed for the drive shaft, but I and my constituents argue that it should be used for the reception shaft—if it is to be used at all—and that the drive shaft should be elsewhere.
We also have concerns about the financing. The hon. Member for South Swindon said that the debate was ongoing in government about what the right approach should be, if the Government are to respond to Thames Water’s approaches. My constituents think—the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) probably shares this view—it is a bit rich for a non-public company to run down its assets and then ask the Government to underwrite it in borrowing significant amounts of money and expecting the taxpayer, the bill payer or both to pick up the bill, as is currently proposed.
I have regularly urged my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—before and after the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, took up his post—to be careful not to endorse a solution that appears to condone allowing water companies in England to run down their assets and then try to get Government support to bail them out. That would not send the right message. The water companies must understand that, if they make choices resulting in their profits going not to the consumer but to their shareholders in the form of dividends, they really cannot expect the Government to come to the rescue, even if that means that one company eventually has to be replaced by another. I am sure that there is no shortage of companies willing to enter the water market in England.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Benyon
I agree entirely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that we have addressed an intrinsic, long-term unfairness for people in the south-west. We have proved that we are doing that not just for today, but for the long term.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
We have a proposal from this Government, not a deal. The Secretary of State said that
“this announcement means that people no longer need to live in fear of being uninsurable”.
However, all band H properties are excluded, as are so-called “genuinely uninsurable” properties and all properties built after 2009. Given that it has taken the Minister three years to get to this point, will he now admit that his proposals do not provide universal access to cover?
Richard Benyon
What an uncharacteristically graceless question from the hon. Gentleman. When the deal was announced from the Dispatch Box last week, there was an audible sigh of relief, not only from Government Back Benchers, but from Opposition Back Benchers. The deal has been welcomed and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows in his heart that it is a good deal and one that will last for the long term.
Flood Insurance
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. It has been a good debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing it and the Backbench Business Committee on giving it the importance it deserves.
We have heard several fantastic speeches and many comments that were true for Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) made a strong argument about the link between flood defences and flood insurance, while the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) raised concerns on behalf of the 1,627 of her constituents who will be particularly affected if flood insurance is not available. To her point about drainage, I would add that there are six provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that have not yet been enacted and which I invite the Government to implement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is a dogged campaigner for her constituents, has made endless attempts to establish the true state of the negotiations and made a powerful argument, while the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) talked about the devastating effects of flooding in his community and made a strong point about how the increasing unpredictability of recent flood events are causing us to ask fundamental questions about the nature of risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a powerful speech about his constituency and his constituents in Morpeth, where nearly 1,000 properties were devastated in those terrible scenes. The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned the village of Leyburn and the problems faced by residents there. He rightly asked a question that I will go on to ask: would it not be terrible if those constituents came together to manage their flood risk but were let down by the Government and the insurance industry in getting a deal?
Hon. Members across the House will, I am sure, agree with comments made by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) about the tragic event in Looe last week, and our condolences go out to the families of those concerned. There are other issues elsewhere in Cornwall, and the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) spoke about the inevitable unwinding of the cross-subsidy in the system, should we move to a free market position.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) made a powerful speech about the lack of urgency and care from this Government, and he put it best when he said that they must get their act together, and soon—a point I will go on to make. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) drew on matters relating to planning and deliberate flooding, reminding us that we must view this issue in the round. Finally, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—a constituency that has seen more water than most in the past 12 months—drew on the key issue of affordability and reminded the House that we are discussing a not-for-profit scheme.
Ninety-six days are all that stand between today’s near-universal coverage for flood damage and an unfettered free market that will leave tens of thousands of people with homes that are uninsurable, unmortgageable and unsellable—96 days, and the clock is ticking.
I am disappointed that the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), is unable to be with us today as it is clear that he is leading on negotiations. I am sure that his services as a Government troubleshooter are needed elsewhere, but whatever measure of success the Government apply, so far the process leading to whatever deal we will get has been a failure—a failure of competence, ambition and ideology, and a failure of the Prime Minister.
Hon. Members might remember the Prime Minister’s comments during the extensive flooding of November last year:
“I’m sure we will do a deal…We are in negotiations at the moment…We need to take a tough approach frankly and it’s important insurance companies do what they are meant to, which is provide insurance to households and we are going to make sure that happens.”
Just to make it perfectly clear, he said: “I am personally involved.” That was last year, yet 200,000 high-risk homes could find themselves without insurance in 96 days.
In government we negotiated a wide-ranging agreement to ensure near universal access to flooding insurance. The limitations to that scheme have been made clear, which is why in 2008 we agreed, alongside the insurance industry, that a successor deal would be needed. This Government, however, have had three years but they have squandered them. They had an insurance industry willing to negotiate to find a solution, and I made it clear that the Opposition will take a responsible approach and support any deal to ensure affordable and available insurance. The Government had the resources of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Office, and even of No. 10 Downing street, yet with 96 days to go there is still no deal.
The consequences of that are stark. Nick Starling from the Association of British Insurers warned that the only alternative to a deal with the Government
“is a free market, meaning up to 200,000 people will find insurance unavailable or unaffordable.”.
Ian Crowder of AA Insurance has stated:
“We are concerned insurance premiums will spiral out of control if no agreement is reached between the ABI and the Government.”,
and Paul Broadhead of the Building Societies Association warned chillingly:
“Failure to reach agreement could also have an effect on mortgage lending in high risk areas”.
The National Flood Forum stated:
“Government needs to accept its responsibilities of protecting its citizens by making a decision. Failure to make a proposal will put thousands of people at risk”.
In short, if the Government fail to get a deal, nearly 200,000 households could find themselves without insurance, unable to sell, and with their properties revalued sharply downwards. That could place them in negative equity and create tranches of property blight across the constituencies we represent. In other words, the stakes could not be higher.
Given those consequences, it is even more worrying that the Government seem unable to admit that they are struggling. In a letter to me of 19 April 2012, the Minister stated:
“I cannot comment on the timing of any future announcements on this issue but have committed to providing a further update this spring”
For the sake of clarity, that was spring 2012. No response. In response to my written question of 18 June 2012, the Minister said that the Government were
“at an advanced stage in intensive negotiations with the industry on alternative arrangements for when the Statement of Principles expires.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 738W.]
In her written ministerial statement of 11 July 2012, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), said:
“Intensive discussions with the insurance industry are continuing and we will announce further details in due course.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 30WS.]
Last November, Lord De Mauley said in the other place:
“We are in intense but constructive negotiations with the industry and further announcements will be made in due course”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 644.]
When asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) in January, the Minister said:
“We want to protect those on low incomes in flood-risk areas, and we think we have a method of doing that. We are at an advanced stage in negotiations; I will come to the House shortly, I hope, with details.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 445.]
Come the next set of DEFRA questions in March, the Minister responded to another question asked by my hon. Friend by saying:
“Constructive negotiations continue with the insurance industry, at the highest levels of Government, on a range of approaches that could succeed the current statement of principles.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2013; Vol. 1109, c. 559.]
This situation would be comical if it were not so serious. This is the mañana Department of a mañana Government—always tomorrow and no help for today.
Even if an agreement could be reached, it would require primary legislation. The Minister should admit what we now know to be true—that this will not be in place for 30 June. The 570,000 properties to which this motion applies and the 570,000 families that could find their homes uninsurable, unmortgageable and unsellable are calling for certainty, but there is none.
What is the plan? To deny the risk and the social responsibility that any Government bear would deny one of the most basic laws of political gravity, which is that catastrophic risk resides with us all. When catastrophic floods devastate streets, towns and communities, we rightly expect the Government to be there to help us pick up the pieces. That is what is so short-sighted about the Government’s response to getting a deal done on flood insurance.
As the Minister has previously made clear, there is only one deal on the table. The alternative is a free market that will allow insurers to leave the market for high-risk properties and that will unwind a long-standing settlement that flood insurance should be available as part of every policy.
Climate change is making flooding more prevalent and less predictable, and the UK climate change risk assessment cites it as the No. 1 threat that we need to adapt to. I have made it clear that the Opposition seek to be helpful and constructive in securing a deal that protects home owners, businesses and communities vulnerable to the risk of flooding. Despite our constructive approach, Ministers have refused to brief this House or involve the Opposition in the discussions. As each week passes, it is becoming harder to defend a situation in which Ministers appear to be drifting without giving any indication of when a deal will be concluded.
This Government must get a grip. They have 96 days and the clock is ticking.
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend has a great many constituents who live in flood risk, and we want to be able to assure them that there is something that will continue after the end of the statement of principles. As I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the new system is better because it will not only be available to all properties that are at flood risk but will have an affordability element. We have in mind my hon. Friend’s constituents and many others around the country who live in flood risk, but we are also responsible to the taxpayer. We want to make sure that what we are doing is fair to the taxpayer and fair to the person living in flood risk.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Building Societies Association has said that the consequences of failing to get a deal would be “grave”. Potential buyers would find it difficult or impossible to get a mortgage, loan book values would drop, capital requirements would rise, and there would be less money to lend in the real economy. Is sales blight on 200,000 properties an acceptable price to pay for this Government’s inaction?
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that there is inaction; I can assure him that there is an awful lot of action. Alongside the negotiations that have been going on, we have been producing documents such as one that has been highly recommended by the British Institute of Insurance Brokers Association: “Obtaining flood insurance in high risk areas”. We are also assisting people in flood-risk measures they take for their property at household level so that that will be reflected in the premium. The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the potential impact on mortgages and lenders, and that is one of the main drivers towards the quick result we want to get in this matter.
Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir James Paice
I do not know, because it has not been made public. That is a complete irrelevance, however. It is not a reasonable argument, because the situation in this case is the same as it is for judges: if everybody obeyed the law, we would not need any judges, but we would still have them, just in case. There is ample evidence that there will be cases for the adjudicator to adjudicate on, however. The Bill contains a number of limiting provisions, too: the adjudicator can decide not to take up a reference; the adjudicator can fine somebody if the reference has no serious foundation; and the adjudicator’s job is only to arbitrate on alleged breaches of the code, which is quite a narrowly drawn document. I strongly believe the Bill is right as drafted.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman acquired extensive knowledge of the food sector in his time as a DEFRA Minister. As this new clause addresses the balance of power between suppliers and retailers, I wonder whether in his time as a Minister he came across any evidence that big suppliers were putting downward pressure on retailers in the way the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has advanced.
Sir James Paice
The honest answer is that, no, I did not come across such evidence, but it may well have been happening and I just did not know about it, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley rightly said, those very big suppliers can look after themselves. I am not arguing against what has been said. Indeed, I would have had some sympathy for new clause 2 and the £1 billion threshold if I thought my hon. Friend’s motives were justified, but as a result of the rest of his argument I completely lost any support for it that I might otherwise have had. I also think the Bill as currently drafted will militate against big organisations acting in such ways. The Bill is designed to deal with problems that we all agree arise, and which tend to fall on small and medium-sized enterprises.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paterson
I enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to those in the Environment Agency, councils and other public services who worked so hard over Christmas and the new year. She is an indefatigable supporter of her constituents’ demands and the Tenbury Wells scheme is in play as part of the extra funding that is being made available, but I cannot make any announcements today.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
In government, Labour provided funding to protect 160,000 households from flooding over two years. This Government will take four years to protect the same number of properties. Why?
Mr Paterson
That is a slightly dotty question. Some flood schemes take several years to plan and this really is not a party political issue; schemes were built by the previous Labour Government from which we are benefiting now and we are building schemes now that will last for a generation. There are substantial schemes in play. The circumstances have been incredibly difficult because of the awful mess we inherited—we still have the worst deficit in western Europe—but despite that we plan to spend £2.1 billion to protect 145,000 properties. In the spending round in November we got an extra £120 million that will over time protect a further 60,000 properties. These are good schemes and the hon. Gentleman should support them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the most pressing and important long-term responses to the challenge of flooding is the protection of those 200,000 home owners who will be left without insurance, leaving their homes unmortgageable and unsellable, if the Minister cannot get a deal. The Association of British Insurers has described discussions on flood insurance as “stalled”. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to lay out calmly what he believes is the last acceptable date for a deal?
Mr Paterson
I would like to reassure the shadow Minister that the talks are not stalled. We have had detailed discussions on a regular basis with the ABI—before I came into office in September and since. I am not going to put a date on it, because we want to get to a system that improves on the current statement of principles. To repeat what I said earlier, we want something that is affordable and as comprehensive as possible but which is not a burden on the taxpayer. We intend to carry on these detailed negotiations, but I cannot conduct them in public.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paterson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is aware that it was agreed in the national planning policy framework that there would be no more building on floodplains. She is quite right that it is absolutely idiotic to build houses in such inappropriate places. However, I reassure her, too, that the Government take this matter seriously. We want to find a solution that follows from the statement of principles, but that is better and more comprehensive.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role as Secretary of State and to his first DEFRA questions. When he took up his new position, was he briefed by his civil servants that the number of schemes deferred had risen, that spending on defences had fallen, that climate change meant that flood risk had risen and that this announcement was dangerously overdue?
Mr Paterson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new post.
We are spending £2.17 billion on flood defences. I have visited Nottingham and was in Northwich recently, and there is real value in these schemes, which is why, despite the difficult financial circumstances we inherited from the last Government, these schemes saw only a 6% reduction. They are really good value.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
8. What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to increase voter registration (a) in general and (b) among young people.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The commission runs public information campaigns before elections and referendums to encourage people to register to vote. The campaigns are targeted towards groups less likely to be on the electoral register, including young people. The commission also provides guidance and sets standards for awareness to be raised locally by electoral registration officers, for which it has provided a range of resources to help them to do this, including template posters, press advertisements and press releases. Where underperformance is found, the commission provides EROs with targeted support.
Gavin Shuker
I am aware that many initiatives focused towards young people involve the use of social media, and I can twitter with the best of them, but will the hon. Gentleman give me the assurance that these social media tools will not be used as a replacement for more practical ways of getting young people to sign up to vote?
Mr Streeter
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is important to target public awareness campaigns towards young people in a way that is most likely to attract their attention, for example, by using TV and radio advertising, but on channels that they are likely to watch, which you and I, Mr Speaker, are probably not likely to watch.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Shuker Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Spelman
Yes. We gave the Forestry Commission additional funds to assist with its restructuring, but, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, we inherited a situation in which the previous Government left us with a very substantial deficit and we have to set about clearing up the mess. That involves all DEFRA agencies playing their part, but we have provided assistance to the Forestry Commission on restructuring.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
May I commend the Secretary of State on completing her about-face on forests? She was an innovative trailblazer back in the day when she halted her sell-off of the forests, setting a U-turning example that I am pleased to see has been followed by almost every Department in Whitehall ever since. In her answer to the previous question, she said that additional funds had been made available to the Forestry Commission to carry out its programme of cuts. Will she now commit to halting those cuts until she brings forward her decision on the report that was published yesterday?
Mrs Spelman
We are dealing with two separate things here, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for recording her cross-party support for the forestry report. To reiterate for the House and to make it perfectly clear, the public forest estate will remain in public ownership and there is no programme of sales, but, as I have just said in response to the question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), DEFRA has to help to reduce the deficit that the Labour party left this Government to clear up. Every DEFRA agency is playing its part, but we have given assistance specifically to the Forestry Commission with its restructuring programme.