Water Bill

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

That is one reason why I support the Welsh model of a not-for-profit company, because, as I say, I feel that the general public have been ripped off throughout this period.

Let me just finish off with my last couple of examples, because I would not want to miss them out: United Utilities was fined £75,000 for management failures that contributed to a fire in October 2013; and Severn Trent Water received a £30,000 fine for sewage pollution in September last year. The performance record of these companies is that not only do they not tackle the leakages and the real need for infrastructure investment, but they are polluting the very water they are supposed to be protecting and supplying.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned Severn Trent Water. Given the pollution incidents involving water companies, does he agree that there is an urgent need to examine the court costs and fines imposed on water companies? Does he also agree that there is a real danger that some companies might prefer to go ahead, pollute and accept a fine because that approach is nowhere near as expensive as making the investment in the first place?

[John McDonnell]

The drive for profits is making these companies ignore their duty towards the wider environment, and the fines and costs are relatively marginal in comparison with the profits they make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make. There is great concern among the farming community that farms may be excluded whereas the farm house may be included. I commend my hon. Friend’s knowledge, because she worked in the insurance industry for a time. We need to know whether farms and people working from their own homes are going to be included, and what the position will be for small businesses, because this could put them out of business in some of the areas that we have seen flooded over the past two years in repeat flooding incidents. It has also been brought to my attention, although, unfortunately, too late to have tabled an amendment, that there is concern that blocks of flats—leasehold flats—may be excluded from this arrangement. That may be news to the Minister as well, but before Third Reading he might like to ponder whether such blocks will be excluded.

Our amendments to clause 51 address concerns relating to the exclusion of small companies such as charities and, as I have mentioned, farms under the new Flood Re proposals in the Bill. Any business based in a property that is primarily a residential one, and on which the occupier therefore pays council tax, would fall within the Flood Re scheme. Any business based in premises used primarily for business will not be covered. It is extremely important that we understand these issues. For the first time that I can remember, under the Flood Re scheme, once it is up and running, the Government will be added as an insurer of last resort if in the three years before the fund has built up we suffer an exceptional one-in-a-thousand-year incident.

In the Public Bill Committee, the ABI stated that Flood Re is not the solution for small businesses and that there is not a sufficient evidence basis for providing insurance cover for small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses is concerned that small businesses that have affordability problems will not be covered, other than in respect of the insurance premiums or excess that they might seek to defray. Although they do not pay council tax, they do pay business rates and therefore could be rated in a similar way to household customers under Flood Re. There remain a lot of known unknowns with Flood Re as to why a council band rate has been chosen and which particular band rate has been opted for, but that is a separate debate. If there is a lack of evidence, further investigations and monitoring should be conducted with regard to small businesses and how they might cope with sourcing flood insurance in the free market.

Our amendments to clause 53 would have the effect of ensuring that insurance companies cover for any liability in excess of a one-in-200-year loss. Our amendments seek greater clarification of the Government’s role in this scenario of a one-in-200-year loss, and, in particular, how the taxpayer would be protected. As I have mentioned, the Government will, for the first time, be the insurer of last resort. In later years, after the fund has built up, I do not believe that that will be a problem, but we are seeking the Minister’s reassurance about what the implications will be in respect of the first three years. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that there is no Government liability for Flood Re and that the Government have made it clear that Flood Re is not guaranteed above the one-in-200-year level, so he might just like to revisit that and clarify the point.

Our amendment 8 would put the Government’s commitment in the Bill and create certainty for all concerned as to who will assume the additional liability. A one-in-200-year loss scenario would be the total value of claims from households reinsured through Flood Re that, during the course of a year, actuaries would not expect to be exceeded in 99.5% of years. Expressed in a different way, that would mean that the actuaries would be 99.5% confident that the limit would not be exceeded in any one year. It is important to note that that is not the same as a one-in-200-year flood event; the ABI has estimated that this would mean flooding six times worse than that experienced in 2007. Obviously, neither the Minister nor the insurance industry will yet be able to say what the cost of the recent floods has been, but I hope that he will see fit to lend his support to our amendments, and I commend them to the House.

[Joan Walley]

I am fortunate to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who speaks with the greatest authority on these subjects, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber would agree. I particularly share her concern about drainage and surface water, and I agree with the points she made earlier about the need to ensure that highways authorities also have statutory duties, so that we can deal with this issue in a joined-up way. The debate on this group of provisions is important because we have had pre-legislative scrutiny by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the draft Water Bill and subsequent debate in that Committee. When the Minister addresses the various comments that have been made, we will see the extent to which the Government are listening to what Parliament is saying about the amendments. There may not necessarily be agreement on all of them; I am talking about the amendments that seek genuinely to try to improve matters on the whole issue of water. We have an opportunity to put in place legislation that is fit for purpose, so I hope that improvements will be made.

[Thomas Docherty]

It will probably not cheer my hon. Friend to hear that every single amendment tabled in Committee by Opposition Members, and indeed by coalition Members, was rejected, even though the Minister had previously agreed with them in the Select Committee.

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. As I have said, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, so we will wait to hear what the Minister says in response. Given that the Bill has further stages to go through before Royal Assent—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) nodding—I think that it is the Opposition’s duty to press the Government as much as possible, because it is important that Parliament does the right thing. Even if the Government do not make concessions at this stage, there will be an opportunity in the other place to put more flesh on the Bill and to make it much more fit for purpose. We will wait to see what further progress we can make.

I will speak briefly to new clause 6, which stands in my name, because I realise that many Members wish to speak. I want to introduce my comments by considering the issue of contaminated land. It is clear to me from the work I have done recently that there is a problem with how we deal with contaminated land. The current regime and the funding for it, particularly that which involves local authorities, is not fit for purpose, and it needs to be. We are dealing with a huge amount of legacy problems. I do not want the Government to set up a whole new regime without giving due consideration to the preventive measures that would need to be put in place in relation to fracking and shale gas extraction.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would rule me out of order if I were to speak this evening on whether we should have fracking or shale gas extraction. The point I want to make is that if it is to go ahead, with the enormous tax concessions it currently has, there needs to be a proper regime in place that relates to water, water quality and concerns about contamination. It is for that reason that I have tabled new clause 6. I acknowledge that, were the Government to act on the concerns I am raising, there would need to be consequential amendments to paragraph 9 of schedule 20 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, so I do not want the Minister simply to claim on a technical point that the new clause is unworkable because it is not thorough in that regard.

My understanding is that the principles that the polluter should pay and that prevention is much better than an end-of-pipe solution mean that we should be dealing at this stage with the procedures that need to be put in place to prevent contamination of water as a result of fracking. I point out that the new clause is supported by many non-governmental organisations working on the front line to deal with that, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Angling Trust, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Salmon & Trout Association.

New clause 6 would amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 to introduce a liability guarantee to ensure that fracking companies have the funds available to pay the clean-up costs should an accident occur during the fracking process. I think that is eminently sensible. A similar amendment was tabled in Committee and briefly debated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) just pointed out, but it got nowhere. I believe that it was important to table it again for further consideration, mainly because the Minister’s response in Committee did not offer adequate assurances that the public purse would not be hit should an accident occur.

As I understand it, the Minister’s main argument was that the existing regulations on the statute book already ensure that operators are technically and financially competent to carry out fracking activities. However, a financial competence check is carried out only in specific circumstances, and competence is not the same as securing a form of financial provision or guarantee for long-term environmental liabilities. In other words, it does not guarantee that a company has put in place funding or insurance for dealing with an accident; it only provides a snapshot in time of its financial situation. I am reminded of the complex discussions there have been about the ownership of football clubs and where due diligence should lie.