Water Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

88ZA: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Onshore oil or gas activities: effect on water environment
In Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (environmental permits) after paragraph 13 there is inserted—“Onshore oil or gas activities: effect on water environment
13A. Without prejudice to the operation of regulation 35(2) and paragraph 5(1)(d) of Schedule 10 and of regulation 35(2) and paragraph 7(j) of Schedule 20, the regulator shall refuse an application for the grant or variation of an environmental permit or for the transfer in whole or in part of an environmental permit if—(a) the regulated facility to which the application for, or transfer of, the environmental permit relates is to be carried on as part of an onshore oil or gas activity; and(b) the regulator is not satisfied that the applicant or the proposed transferee has made or will make adequate financial provision for preventing or mitigating pollution of the water environment, by ensuring all of the following—(i) operation of the regulated facility in accordance with the environmental permit;(ii) compliance with any enforcement notice or suspension notice or prohibition notice or mining waste facility closure notice or landfill closure notice which may be served on the applicant or transferee by the regulator under these regulations; (iii) compliance with any order of the High Court which may be obtained against the applicant or transferee under regulation 42 for the purpose of securing compliance with any of the notices listed in sub-paragraph (ii);(iv) compliance with any order of any court issued under regulation 44 against the applicant or transferee; and(v) recovery by the regulator of its costs upon any exercise of its power against the applicant or transferee under regulation 57;(c) for the purpose of this paragraph “onshore oil or gas activity” means any activity for the purpose of exploration for or extraction of onshore oil and gas;(d) for the purpose of this paragraph “adequate provision by way of financial security” means financial provision which is sufficient in value, secure and available when required.””

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, this subject may be familiar to the cognoscenti because it has been before this House in Committee and was discussed in the Commons. I am bringing the amendment back because it is an issue that the Government will have to face up to at some point, whether in this Bill or elsewhere, and the sooner the better. It concerns the effect on water supply and water quality of fracking for shale gas or oil.

I have been looking at earlier debates on similar amendments, and the Government’s responses here and in another place seem to reflect that they have assumed that this is an anti-fracking amendment. It is not. Indeed, it assumes that there will be significant development of shale gas over the next period, and that such development will eventually and inevitably use significant amounts of water, and may have detrimental effects on the quality of water and ecosystems if not effectively regulated. It makes no judgment on the broader issue of shale gas and fracking and its effect on overall energy strategy. We could have a debate on energy strategy today; if noble Lords want my view, it is that while there will be a significant development of shale gas in the UK and in Europe, it is unlikely to result in the kind of transformation in prices, energy supply and energy mix that we have seen in the United States. In terms of its effect on climate change and the carbon market, it rather depends. If shale gas leads to a faster reduction in the use of coal and oil for generations, then it will be positive. If it slows down the adoption of nuclear and renewable technologies, it will be negative.

Either way, there are concerns about the immediate environmental and resource effects of fracking processes—primarily, and in the context of this Bill, in relation to water. These effects occur in three broad ways. The first is the possible pollution of water systems and aquifers by chemicals that are released in the fracking process, and the release of methane. Secondly, there is the substantial effect on the level of abstractions and supplies of water needed in the fracking process itself. Fracking companies will need huge supplies of water—clean water, rather than direct abstraction—and that will have an effect on the levels of water resources available, sometimes in our most overstretched river catchment areas. That will therefore have an effect on total supplies and indeed on the cost of water. Thirdly, there are the effects of the operation of cleansing the water that is used in the fracking process prior to its re-entry into the water system, and its effect on the robustness and the operation of water treatment plants. On all three fronts, things can go wrong, and it certainly means that there are significant changes in both the water catchment structure and in availability and on the delivery of clean water.

I am not scaremongering. It is perfectly possible to regulate the fracking process to minimise pollution and to avoid drastic damage. It is possible to license the use of water and the supply of water resources so as to avoid any major curtailment of overall supplies. However, it is also true that the effects will not be contained by regulation operation by operation, and that there will be aggregate effects and potentially significant damage to ecosystems and detriment to the water systems over time. The amendment would recognise that and would try to ensure that the fracking operators, as a condition of their licence, made provision for possible future damage to the water supply system and the costs of clean-up. History shows us the necessity for this. Previous generations of different forms of energy sources—coal and nuclear, for example—show that substantial potential damage was done to the environment, in terms of subsidence or whatever, to the landscape and to public health but that liabilities or potential liabilities were not met by the entity actually doing the damage, whether that was the state in the nationalised period or the private owners of coal mines. The cost has in effect been met by taxpayers.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in the knowledge that there are effective measures in place already to address the concerns behind his amendment so far as current operations are concerned and that we remain committed to addressing any remaining concerns about longer-term assurance in an appropriate way.

[Lord Whitty]

I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his support and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their interventions. I accept that it is slightly odd to put this in the Bill. However, water is a big part of the fracking operation and fracking has a significant effect on water. In all that the Minister said, he did not say when he would come forward with the kind of structures that he promised in the previous debate and which are underlined now.

I recognise that one cannot differentiate in relation to conventional oil and gas operations onshore. We have had plenty of those in this country; we operated onshore oil extraction in Dorset for decades. One cannot differentiate in terms of the relative regulations.

I accept, too, that the issue is wider than that of water. However, somewhere we need to see the Government make progress in creating the arrangements that the Minister has now twice referred to—namely, an obligation to ensure financial resilience and possibly the creation of separate funds to ensure that they could meet the effects of clean-up. I am sure that the Minister is right that this requires substantial consultation. I certainly agree that ideally we should consider the effect of fracking holistically on all environmental issues across the board, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said.

I hope the noble Lord is right that we can move fairly rapidly on this as a large number of relatively small-scale operations could arise in a lot of locations. In view of the damage that could be caused, one has to question the ability of the regulatory authorities to enforce standards on all those operations at all times. The care that the operators will exercise will be proportionate to their financial stake in the operation and their bottom line. Therefore, it is important that they make financial provision to cover that before these operations reach scale. That is what this amendment is about. I accept that it is not entirely appropriate, but I think the Government have accepted that something needs to be done in this regard and I hope that they will introduce an appropriate measure in legislation or regulation as soon as possible.

In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 88ZA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I, too, do not object to these amendments and I congratulate the Minister on getting through them in six minutes flat. Many of them will be substantial improvements to the Bill, particularly the ones which iron out a few things in relation to Ofwat in terms of the changing competitive regime. I very much welcome that. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that, in its second riposte, the Delegated Powers Committee said that it is not entirely satisfied with the provision for only the first instance of definition being by affirmative regulation. The Government will have to have an answer to that. In general, it is sensible for Ministers to swallow hard and accept all the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee, otherwise it ends in trouble down the line.

The only other thing I would ask about is Amendment 90T, which relates to hybridity. I do not really want to have a debate on hybridity now, but the Delegated Powers Committee raised the issue, and I am not sure that the Government’s response fully meets the point, because it effectively says that, whether it is hybrid or not, we are going to ignore it. I am not sure that is a satisfactory response, but if the Delegated Powers Committee will buy it, I will not object. Otherwise, we welcome these amendments.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken at this stage of the Bill and I, too, must declare that I live in a band H property. However, I also have a professional interest in parts of the Bill by virtue of being a chartered surveyor. I certainly welcome the proposals for the affirmative resolution procedures outlined by the noble Baroness and agree that the disclosure of council tax information is necessary. However, I have one query, which relates to Amendment 90CD. Could the noble Baroness confirm that the normal process of disclosure will generally relate to the identity of the property and its council tax band rather than the identity of the chargepayer, the latter being something that is normally held by the billing authority? If I have missed some point about the disclosure, and where the identity of the individual can be discovered, perhaps she would put me out of my misery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an owner of a band H property. Many noble Lords have spoken on this amendment at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and I spoke to a similar one in Committee, and I am pleased that the House has returned to it. I have one question for the Minister that is a matter of principle. While the rationale for the exclusions from band H properties is principally that some band H owners have higher incomes than others—that is not a proven principle but it nevertheless continues to be argued by the Government—does the Minister accept the view that the Flood Re scheme should follow the principle that those who contribute to this government scheme are afforded its protection?

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for tabling this amendment, and particularly for the way in which he outlined the dilemmas of this proposition. I think we all have a problem here. I hope that I do not need to make it clear that we on this side strongly support the basic concept of Flood Re and the reassurance that it will give to a lot of people who are currently worried about their future cover.

We have to recognise that the Government are not entirely on a free position on this; indeed, I congratulated the Government—that is quite rare for me—not long ago on reaching an agreement with the ABI, which I know is an incredibly difficult negotiator. Therefore, I do not think that any of us want to unnecessarily unravel the arithmetic that lies behind the Flood Re proposition as it now is. However, the wide-ranging nature of the noble Earl’s amendment means that we would be unravelling it quite substantially.

On the other hand, as noble Lords have made clear, this is not entirely a matter for the insurance industry. The structure of the project is an agreement between insurance companies but it has to be backed by Parliament and it therefore has a statutory base. Parliament has to be concerned about fairness, equity and proportionality. We therefore have to query whether the exclusion of certain properties, and such a large number of them in aggregate, is fair and equitable.

To some extent, I go along the same lines as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter: there are different arguments relating to the different categories. Some exclusions were in the previous statement of principle and are therefore in a changed position as a direct result of the demarcation of Flood Re. Small businesses were covered by the previous arrangements, as were tenants in leasehold premises—although there have been some concessions of late, which I will come on to in the next amendment—and band H properties. The exclusion of post-2009 properties is not a new position; it was the position under the old scheme.

I shall comment on my view on each of those. First, I accept that small businesses have a different way of meeting their insurance requirements. I also accept, on the other hand, that many small businesses, boarding houses, shops and small premises were seriously affected by those floods and, under their understanding of the previous settlement, would probably expect to be covered by the replacement scheme. It is therefore quite important that we bear in mind the position of small businesses. The insurance industry claims that there is not a market failure in this area, and the Government seem to have accepted that. Maybe we ought to put businesses in a different channel because they are not dealt with in the same way as residential properties under Flood Re. The Government should not lose sight of the fact that many small businesses are under serious risk and do not feel well protected by the current situation. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to come back to this.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Moynihan, and others referred to band H properties. It is a slightly odd move by the Government to exclude band H—an unusually populist, progressive move, to avoid cross-subsidy from the poor to the rich. It may be a welcome indication of things to come. However, it still leaves a number of people in difficulty. I think that the Government may have to look again at band H, but it does not make a lot of difference to the arithmetic. The number of people who are asset-rich but income-poor is relatively small and, therefore, it could not make a priority social case for re-including band H.

That leaves me with the subject matter of a subsequent group. Almost the whole of the tenanted sector and the private rented sector, even with the Government’s new concessions, are excluded from this. They all regard themselves as residencies, they all have domestic insurance in one form or another and they are all lived in by households and families. I think it is unfortunate that they are excluded. I would give my priority to that and I will come back with a further amendment. As it stands I cannot fully support the broad sweep of the noble Earl’s amendments. Nevertheless I thank him for the debate and the wide range of issues which, one way or another, the Government will have to explain to various sectors of the public.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his Amendments 89 and 90. He raises issues which I know are of concern to people and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on all sides of the argument.

Amendment 89 to Clause 51 would require that all properties included in the calculation of the levy are eligible for the scheme. It is important to remember that while many homes in the United Kingdom are at some risk of flooding, Flood Re is designed to address an affordability issue for the 1% to 2% at the highest risk of flooding. The levy will provide Flood Re with a funding pool which will be combined with the premium income from those policies which are to be ceded to Flood Re. This will be used for the purposes of the Flood Re scheme, including the purchase of reinsurance and payment of claims. The purpose of having a pool, as is the case for much of our taxation, is that costs are shared by many so that those most in need can benefit. If everybody who paid the Flood Re levy stood to gain, there would be fundamental implications for the required amount of the levy. Alternatively, if the levy was limited to flood-prone households, the pool would not be large enough to have a significant impact on prices and therefore on the affordability of flood insurance.

The insurance industry has been clear that low-risk and no-risk householders have historically subsidised flood insurance for those at a higher risk of flooding and that the move to risk-reflective pricing will over time remove this cross-subsidy from the market. The levy simply replicates and formalises this existing cross-subsidy. Indeed, the ABI has assured us that the levy can be introduced without having an impact on bills in general for householders at a low risk and no risk of flooding, for those in band H or for those with properties built after 1 January 2009—that is, those outside the pool.

If I understand the noble Earl’s intention correctly, I think he is particularly concerned to ensure that those properties which are not eligible for the scheme—such as band H properties, properties built after 1 January 2009 and certain leaseholders on commercial policies—either stand to benefit from Flood Re or do not pay the levy. While I understand that cross-subsidising something from which you will receive no benefit might be perceived as unfair, I have explained why there always have to be some net contributors to make a pooling system work, and this includes the overwhelming majority of households at low risk or no risk of flooding. We discussed the rationale for the scope of Flood Re at length in Committee, and I explained that we think that we have got the balance right. The Government’s approach was widely supported in the response to the 2013 consultation. This approach means that those who are most in need of support will receive it to enable a smooth transition to the free market.

The noble Earl commented on the complexity of the scope of Flood Re. The proposed criteria reflect the current situation for purchasing a domestic insurance policy. We are not seeking to change the circumstances under which insurance is purchased through Flood Re. We must remember that Flood Re is designed to help those people at the highest flood risk, which we estimate could be around 500,000 households. I have heard some very fanciful numbers being bandied around, and they all miss this point. I am not saying that the Government are not still listening to the debate. We will monitor the market, as will the ABI, and we will publish our findings. Should the evidence point to specific issues with insurance for particular sectors, we will discuss with the insurance industry what might be possible.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

89B: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Flood Reinsurance Scheme: report on the inclusion of leaseholders
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion of leasehold and tenanted properties in the FR Scheme.
(2) The report shall include a breakdown of—
(a) the total number of leasehold and tenanted properties which are in the risk areas covered by the FR Scheme;(b) the number of leasehold and tenanted properties where the land is controlled by large multisite commercial operators;(c) the number of leasehold and tenanted properties which are owned by smaller landlord operators; and(d) the cost of including in the FR Scheme properties in paragraph (a) and each of paragraphs (b) and (c).(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy before Parliament within 6 months of this Act coming into force.”

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I will try not to repeat too much of what was covered in the earlier amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but there is obviously some overlap.

Of all the exclusions from Flood Re, that of leasehold and tenanted residential properties was, certainly out there, the most unexpected and, on the face of it, the least logical and most inequitable. As the argument about it has gone on, it has also become the most complex and confusing. Leasehold and tenanted buildings in a flood-prone area are faced with exactly the same risks as the freehold properties next door. That is where we start from. The families and individuals who live in these properties face exactly the same problems. These are residential properties; generally, no business is conducted from them. They are people’s homes. Yet the Flood Re project, which was the product of bilateral negotiations between the Government and ABI without any direct engagement with landlords, leaseholders or tenants, now appears to regard these properties and that risk as being different in kind to that of the freehold buildings in the same street. The rationale for that is that letting a property—whether long or short-term—is regarded as a business. The risk must be the same and the families will not be very different, yet they are treated entirely differently.

Since the original proposition for Flood Re, its terms have been, shall we say, “elaborated”—that is, amended in some respects or, to put it more bluntly, confused. For example, the ABI made it clear—this is a clarification, in a sense, but it confuses the issue—that contents insurance paid for by tenants and leaseholders would be part of the scheme and included in Flood Re, but obviously not the landlord’s buildings insurance paid for by the landlord. That makes the arithmetic a bit more complicated. Clearly, the £10.50 levy on other households—they presumably pay the full buildings and contents insurance—does not apply to that group. That leaves a lot of grey areas. For example, one of the most serious problems for leaseholders and tenants will often be that the flood damage has caused depredation to the fittings and furniture, some of which—in the case of fittings, most of which—will be covered by the buildings insurance of the landlord. Of course, landlords have contents insurance so it is not necessarily the same position as that apparent distinction creates. The effect is that the whole situation is more blurred and complicated.

The Government have also complicated the system. Just recently, they apparently conceded that properties of three or fewer leases are in the scheme, provided that the freeholder lives on the premises. Anything more than three, or where the freeholder happens to live down the road, is outside the scheme. There is also a rumour, though it does not seem to be substantiated, that the ABI and Government were also looking at the possibility of distinguishing between small landowners or single-property landlords and large, commercial operations. Where does that all leave us?

Let us take a typical street in a low-lying riverside area of a market town. For the purposes of making us all at home and in deference to the Minister’s patience in dealing with all the complications of the Bill, let us call it De Mauley Street. In De Mauley Street, No. 2 is a family house with three generations living there from two to 80. No. 4 looks and is very similar but is divided into four flats, one of which is occupied by the landlord at least occasionally. No. 6 is a house divided into four leasehold flats that have jointly bought the freehold and administer it as a leaseholder-owned company. No. 8 is, let us say, owned by a school teacher resident in London who bought the premises for her retirement and is letting it out as four student flats. No. 10 is a four-flat block owned by a commercial leasing company with four leaseholders. I am tempted to add a No. 12 that is a mixed property, but that would complicate it too far.

Under the original proposition, No. 2—the family home—is covered but nobody else. Under the ABI concession on contents insurance, No. 2 is covered and all the rest are, but for leaseholder-paid contents insurance only; everything else is not covered. Under the Government three-leases concession, Nos. 2 and 4 are clearly covered, provided you can prove that the landlord actually lives at No. 4, but only the tenant-owned contents in No. 8 is covered. As I understand it, No. 6 would also be covered because the leaseholders jointly own the freehold and therefore one of them lives on the premises. In Nos. 8 and 10, only the tenants’ contents insurance will be covered. We are already in a very confused position.

If there were a cut-off defined by size of landlord, nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 would be covered but not No. 10. If there happened to be a social landlord in the same street—there would probably not be in De Mauley Street—nobody would be covered because social landlords are not. Incidentally, I am not sure because we have not touched on it what the position is on mixed blocks. With the right to buy, some of the social landlord’s property may well be owned by private leaseholders, who presumably ought to be covered and may well assume that they are—but are not. We have a bit of a pig’s ear of a situation here. None of it is very logical. The properties are pretty much identical, the risk is the same and they thought they were all included under the pre-existing arrangement of the statement of principles.

The long-term implications of this are particularly severe. Particularly with small landlords and their tenants, if they cannot get insurance then they cannot get a mortgage or raise money for improvements. Hence the buildings deteriorate. The only way they could raise money would be to raise rents or the service charge, so tenants and leaseholders suffer directly. The area starts going downhill because the buildings appear more dilapidated and more obviously at risk. The tenant and leaseholder experience suffers, the landlords suffer and the number of new landlords prepared to invest and buy property diminishes in those areas. This is not a situation that the Government find easy to defend, but I think even the insurance industry is beginning to find some difficulty in defending it.

Having said that, as I said earlier in the previous debate, we recognise that the actuarial calculations for Flood Re are delicate and depend on various assumptions. I do not intend to unravel those calculations at this point by this amendment, but it is important that Parliament understands the position so this is a relatively modest amendment. It does not require Flood Re, the Government or the ABI to do anything directly. However, because the scheme has to have statutory backing and because to give that statutory backing Parliament needs to be convinced that it is logical, equitable and proportionate, Parliament needs to understand the consequences of including or excluding different combinations of property.

The amendment therefore seeks to find that out. It does not seek to delay the process—well, not by much. However, it proposes that before we finalise the statutory instrument on this—and it will need a final statutory instrument—the Government report back to Parliament on: the number of leasehold and tenanted properties included; the number excluded; the number where the landlord is in business in a large way; the number where a landlord is in business only in a very small way—probably with a single property; and the cost that would arise from including each of those categories in the Flood Re proposition. I am leaving the dividing line between large and small largely up to the Government, but we need to have a clear one.

The information that that report would show to Parliament would mean that we, and interested parties, could have a meaningful discussion before the consultation started—or within the consultation—on the statutory instrument, which I am assuming, because this is supposed to start in 2015, would have to be within a very few months. Without that information, we in Parliament are in danger of giving the go-ahead to what appears to every rational observer to be a seriously inequitable, complicated and illogical scheme, which we are about to back by legislation. I do not need to tell Ministers that that situation is probably judicially reviewable.

This amendment therefore asks the Government to give us the facts before we finally go down the road. In a way, it is not delaying this legislation going through, but it would allow us to face up to the facts before the final statutory instrument is carried. At the moment, frankly, we do not have those facts. The Minister referred to fanciful figures. A number of very reputable insurance companies and others have bandied about a number of different figures. I do not know the total number that fall into each of these categories nor, I suspect, does the Minister or the ABI. However, we need to know—at least approximately—and we need to know the cost consequences for them, for the scheme and for those in the rest of society who are subsidising this scheme what the effect would be. Therefore, we do need that information. This amendment would allow the Government, without holding everything up, to get that information and to report back to Parliament. In my view it is pretty obvious that Parliament needs to know. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, this is a very mild amendment to which I certainly would have added my name if I had become aware of it in time. There is no doubt that the exclusion of the leasehold and rental sector is the worst lacuna of the current Flood Re scheme. I understand the original political thought process—that professional landlords should not be helped to overcome their flood insurance problems by those who live in band A properties, for example. Of course, that political thought process is a fairly simplistic and stereotypical understanding of the average landlord. This is an important fact: 78% of all landlords own a single dwelling for rent.

As noble Lords know, there are many professions where a dwelling goes with the job. In my part of the world, farm work is the most common example. Many farm workers and tenant farmers buy a house to retire to, and, of course, they let it while they are still working, largely to help with the mortgage. It is perfectly sensible retirement planning and the Government should encourage it. Furthermore, perhaps it is a typical English aspiration, but many people currently living and working in cities have a dream of buying a house in the country and retiring there—similar to the farm workers who I have just mentioned—and they will let it in order to help pay the mortgage on it.

This Bill does not recognise these dreams of ordinary—well, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned schoolteachers, but it could have been anyone really: secretaries, nurses, anybody. It does not, to borrow a phrase from Yeats, tread softly on their dreams. They are excluded from this scheme. Surely these are the people for whom this scheme should be designed—people whose mortgage companies will insist on full insurance, including flood insurance. But what about those who cannot afford a house, in the country or elsewhere, and buy a flat? I cannot think of a more appropriate person to benefit from this scheme. However, along with 60% of the other households, they will almost certainly be excluded from this scheme while at the same time contributing to it.

I will not give the rest of the speech on leaseholders and flat owners because that has already been very well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. However, it seems strange to exclude householders whose only error has been to choose to live in a flat rather than a full-blown house. It seems unjust to me. A much more sensible cut-off point for the application of Flood Re would have been owners of, say, two, three or four let properties. However, all that apart, this amendment will at least ensure that we have a full understanding of the sort of owners, leaseholders and tenants whose property is being excluded and what they could have contributed to the scheme if they had been included. As I say, I think that this is a very mild amendment, merely touching on a problem that is a major shortcoming in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I recognise some of the things that the Minister is saying, but the fact is that that is not the perception out there. I do not mean the perception of somebody who has read only a few articles in their local paper or the national press; I mean the perception of the representatives of small landlords. They do not think that is the position. They do not think it is easy for them to get insurance for properties within the risk area. The representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders are extremely worried about being asked by owners of leasehold and tenanted properties to advance mortgages against properties that it is difficult to insure. It is not even the perception of the managing agents, who by and large have the larger properties, who also think that they are in some difficulty. As it happens, I met all three groups first thing this morning. They remain unconvinced about what is essentially the Government’s line.

If you look at this from the point of view of the leaseholders and the tenants—let us leave aside short-term tenants for the moment, although I echo the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, whose support I am very grateful for on this, that most tenanted properties are actually owned by a landlord who has a single property—they have a difficulty in raising insurance in the first place, and certainly for property within a flood risk area they will find even greater difficulties now.

Probably the most acute difficulty, though, is for those who are in long leases and are leaseholders because of the nature of the freehold relationship to their property, but who for all other intents and purposes regard themselves as home owners. They have a long mortgage on the leasehold property, they conduct all their affairs, including their insurance, on their own part of that property, and they do not regard themselves as being any different in status, vulnerability or risk from the people next door who are freehold owner-occupiers.

There are many people in that situation in many parts of the country, including some that are subject to serious flood risk. For them, the message is going out, “The next-door neighbour is covered but you are not, because you own”—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said—“a flat and not a house”. They may be on a very long lease, but, nevertheless, they are differentiated in this respect.

As I say, this amendment does not seek to rectify, turn over or redefine the boundaries; it simply asks that Parliament should know what the situation is before it finally signs off this scheme. It may be that everything the Minister has said is upheld in the feedback, but we have had representations from both landlords and leaseholders of property who, whether they have a property with 12 flats or three flats, have the same problem and do not believe that they are going to be covered. They think that the Government and the insurance industry are letting them down because they are not covered.

At least Parliament should know what the situation is. That is all my amendment asks. If the Government are not prepared at least to accept that they will formally report back on this to Parliament before the next stage, or before an SI is produced, for the sake of all those people out there who think that they are being treated inequitably, illogically, unfairly and non-transparently, I have to ask the opinion of the House on this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I have some slight difficulties with this amendment. I understand the concept and, in a sense, I want the outcome. The role of the insurance companies’ relationship with householders—whoever they may be, in the light of the previous debate—in improving the resilience of their properties is an important dimension of this scheme. Some of it is deliverable through the normal relationship between insurance companies and their premium payers, in the sense that a condition of the insurance or of the level of excess on the insurance can be that they put in such-and-such a resilience measure or that they meet certain standards in the property. The insurance companies can in some circumstances go further than this and make a grant towards them. The problem with the amendment is that it feels too open-ended.

To answer the question about whose money it is, the money is contributed by the rest of us. It is the £10.50, or whatever it turns out to be, that the rest of the population puts into looking after high-risk properties. There is therefore a need for due diligence that that money does not go to diffuse purposes. If this amendment would lead to significant sums of money in surplus years being used in a different way, then issues of accountability arise. A more tightly worded amendment would probably meet with my approval, but people reading this could think that, if you have a surplus of £500 million after 10 years, you should be spending it directly on grants to householders in risk-prone areas to improve individual or communal flood defences. I do not think that is what is meant, but the wording could be susceptible to that meaning. I therefore support the general concept, but I do not think this amendment achieves it in a way that is easily defensible to home owners who are contributing to the financing of this scheme.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Parminter for her amendment, which deals with a very important subject. I thank all other noble Lords who spoke to it.

Actions taken by government, communities, individuals and businesses to reduce levels of flood risk are indeed the best and most cost-effective way to secure affordable insurance and value for money from Flood Re in the long term. In addition to the substantial levels of investment in flood defences that I referred to in an earlier debate today, we are also taking action to ensure that households are supported to improve their property-level resilience. For example, grants of up to £5,000 are available for households and businesses that have flooded this winter, and applications open tomorrow. In addition, there are community projects in which we are investing more than £4 million over two years in order to learn about the most effective strategies to drive community resilience to flooding. Nevertheless, I recognise my noble friend’s intention to see Flood Re’s role reflected in the Bill.

Reserves that build up during the lifetime of Flood Re will primarily be used to pay flood claims in the bad years. Flood events are by their nature unpredictable, so while it may be possible that Flood Re would have a number of good years in which it built up reserves, it is equally possible that a run of bad years with heavy flooding could wipe out any reserves built up within Flood Re. As such, it is not easy to identify surplus funds, and any decision about Flood Re’s reserves will need to involve judgment about the level of cover needed for the unpredictable risks it bears.

Added to this, as an authorised re-insurer, Flood Re will be required by the Prudential Regulation Authority to hold certain minimum levels of capital. Any commitment by Flood Re to spend a certain portion of reserves in a certain way—for example, on betterment or resilience—would necessarily increase the amount of capital it is required to hold on an ongoing basis, having an impact on the cost of the scheme and ultimately the levy.

It may well be that, in due course, the Flood Re administrator decides that investments of the sort my noble friend would like to see present the best way of Flood Re fulfilling its obligations to manage the transition and act in the public interest. However, these are choices that are difficult to make before the scheme is established or has any sort of track record. Nothing in the Bill precludes this.

Alternatively, in due course, Flood Re may decide, in consultation with government, that the best use of any surplus is to reduce the level of the levy, thereby helping to deliver affordability for all policyholders, not just those in Flood Re. We would not, at this stage, wish to see Flood Re’s hands tied in legislation that could have an unpredictable and undesirable effect.

We have always been clear that there should be a gradual transition to more risk-reflective prices. We expect the transition plan to set out how Flood Re intends to support households to adapt to the withdrawal of support from Flood Re over time. We will not designate Flood Re unless we are satisfied with the industry’s proposals for the scheme, including the transition plan.

It is important for Flood Re to retain flexibility in the way it discharges its public interest duty and plans for transition in order to ensure that it is in a position to balance these requirements against its core financial obligations. However, my noble friend’s amendment draws attention to the need to offer more clarity about what might happen in the event that a surplus is accumulated, particularly in relation to managing the transition.

I should say that I have considerable sympathy for the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I have first-hand experience of where exactly the type of sensible resilience measures he has suggested cost no more than putting things back exactly as they were before the flood so the insurance claim could cover them. He also referred to advice, which is clearly an important part of that. A number of sources of independent advice are available today. The National Flood Forum can direct flood victims to appropriate measures. Furthermore, we are continuing to discuss with the industry whether any of the reserves could be used to fund surveys.

As I have said, I am very grateful to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing this to my attention. I would like to take the opportunity to discuss their proposals with them further before Third Reading. Although I cannot of course guarantee that I shall be able to bring something back, I may be able to clarify the Government’s position further. I hope that I can persuade my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

90DA: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Appeals on removal from the Flood Reinsurance Scheme
(1) The Secretary of State shall by order establish a right of appeal for a household which has been removed from the Flood Reinsurance Scheme.
(2) The Financial Conduct Authority shall be responsible for the hearing and administration of appeals under subsection (1).
(3) An order under subsection (1)—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.(4) An order under subsection (1) must be made before the Flood Reinsurance Scheme has been implemented.”

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, Amendment 90DA is relatively straightforward. Clause 63 provides for reviews and appeals against premises being deemed not eligible to be entered in the register of those covered by Flood Re. As it is written, Clause 63 indicates that when the register is drawn up there is a list of which households are either in or out, according to the risk assessment at the time.

This is a 25-year scheme and things will change over 25 years. My amendment is designed to add to the provisions of Clause 63 and appeal against the removal from that list at a later stage. It is really a tidying-up. However, removal from the list could arise for a number of different reasons. It could be because the insurance sector had decided that the risk had changed; but that could be because the Committee on Climate Change—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is no longer in his place—had advised of a change and that there was less risk in that particular area. It could be that the Environment Agency’s map had changed. It could be that the aggregated data from the insurance companies showed that that type of property was at less of a risk than it was assumed to be at the beginning of the scheme, bearing in mind that we are potentially 25 years on. It could be that resilience had been provided on some other basis—for instance, a flood defence scheme may have been built down the road—or that the catchment management in that area had significantly improved and diverted the flood away from that property to somewhere else. In an urban area, it could be that there had been major investment in the drainage system, which meant that the property was significantly less susceptible to surface flooding. There are all sorts of reasons why, objectively, the flood risk might diminish. Regrettably, in the light of the macro information from the Committee on Climate Change, it is more likely that a property will be drawn into the list than drawn out of it; but there will be such exclusions.

There could also be exclusions that are more esoteric to the insurance industry, in the sense that if insurance companies were insisting, as a condition of continued insurance, that that resilience measure should be introduced at the expense of the householder, one way or another, and the householders were not prepared to provide for that level of resilience expenditure, then either the offer, or renewal, of insurance would be taken away or the excess would be put at a level which the premium payer was not prepared to pay.

There are all sorts of reasons why a property might end up being removed from that list. If that is the case, there has to be the equivalent appeal against that in a situation where one is excluded from the list from the word go. As I read it, Clause 63 provides only for exclusion from the register in the first place; it does not provide for removal from the register. My amendment seeks to correct that gap. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for this amendment. As we have previously discussed, a rigorous regulatory and dispute resolution regime for the insurance industry already exists, to ensure that insurers treat their customers fairly. Flood Re will not change the direct relationship between the insurer and the householder. Where households do not feel that a complaint has been treated fairly, they can contact the Financial Ombudsman Service, which offers a free dispute resolution service for people who wish to complain about how their insurance company has treated them. While the Financial Ombudsman Service is equipped to deal with individual complaints, the Financial Conduct Authority has a statutory objective to protect the wider interests of consumers and ensure that firms are giving a fair deal to their customers.

We need to remember that Flood Re is a voluntary scheme: insurers are not obliged to use it. We therefore maintain that there is no need for a specific appeal mechanism for Flood Re per se. Flood Re is not based on a register of properties; it is a voluntary scheme and so there are no grounds for an appeal mechanism.

However, the noble Lord is emphasising concern about who might be excluded from Flood Re over time. As was said in the other place, the memorandum of understanding agreed between the Association of British Insurers and the Government last year talked about genuinely uninsurable properties. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management said, there will be no such thing as a genuinely uninsurable property at the start of Flood Re. However, there might be a case that over time, if householders choose to take no action to tackle their flood risk, Flood Re might seek to find a mechanism whereby they no longer benefit from the public subsidy. We have reflected further on that issue, working closely with the ABI. I can reassure noble Lords that our focus is on supporting households to become more resilient, not on excluding them from the Flood Re scheme.

As householders with policies ceded to Flood Re will be benefiting from subsidised insurance, important signals to them about flood risk—for example, the price of insurance and the levels of excess charged—will be lost. We have therefore agreed with the industry that Flood Re will provide information to insurers to pass to householders about flood risk, Flood Re itself and how to reduce the likelihood and impact of flooding. An amendment to that effect has been tabled.

We are continuing to explore with industry how people could be incentivised, perhaps, for example, by Flood Re paying for a survey after a property has flooded a number of times. My noble friend mentioned that. This would depend on Flood Re having sufficient reserves. Another incentive could be to increase the excess after repeated flooding.

There are a number of practical considerations to work through. However, there is a clear commitment between the Government and the insurance industry to putting in place an incentive-based approach rather than an exclusionary approach. I hope that noble Lords will also agree that the approach we have outlined strikes a fair and appropriate balance between supporting householders at high flood risk and the affordability of the scheme as a whole, and that the amendment will therefore be withdrawn, bearing in mind what I said at the beginning about the direct relationship between the insurance company and the householder and the means of redress that they can avail themselves of.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply but I am not sure that it entirely meets the point. As a former chair of Consumer Focus, I am very familiar with the steps that people can take to obtain redress from financial services agencies, including the insurance industry. I am perhaps slightly less sanguine about the effectiveness of it but that is a different matter. However, the fact is that the Bill provides for a register and, in Clause 63, provides for people to appeal against a body being excluded from that register in the first place. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the issue and what the noble Baroness said, I took it she accepted that there was a possibility of someone being excluded in one of the situations that I described—namely, when the insurance company’s request that the householder introduced some resilience measures at their own expense as a condition of continuing to have that insurance could lead to their exclusion from the list. All I am saying is that if there is an appeals process at the beginning, why is there not one all the way through? I may have misunderstood something that the noble Baroness said and the purpose of Clause 63.

[Baroness Northover]

Perhaps I can clarify at least one point in relation to Clause 63 and the register. Clause 63 relates to the flood insurance obligation. It is not relevant to Flood Re. However, I am happy to write to the noble Lord to clarify this area.

[Lord Whitty]

That would be useful for all concerned, so I will shut up. I am very grateful for the Minister’s offer to write to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90DA withdrawn.