Water Bill

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

Indeed, that is a different argument.

I shall give our reasons for new clause 4 in a moment. Abstraction reform forms the basis of new clause 5, in which we would return to what was in the White Paper, where the Government waxed lyrical on abstraction regimes. We particularly call for the abstraction regime to be introduced no later than the end of the period of seven years beginning on the date on which the Bill is passed and comes into legal effect.

Amendments 2 and 3 would insert into clause 21 the relevant language of “undertakers” and “highways authorities”. I am attracted to amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), and look forward to his speaking to it in due course. Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 would include small businesses in the flood reinsurance scheme, for reasons that I shall give in a moment.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Flood Re clauses will help the people whom the Minister and I met in Looe last Saturday who were unable to get insurance because of repeated flooding? Flood Re will give them the opportunity to obtain realistically priced insurance.

[Miss McIntosh]

Our thoughts are obviously with my hon. Friend’s constituents who were sadly inundated during the recent flooding. I look forward to hearing further from her during the debate, as well as the Minister’s response.

Amendments 10 and 11 are consequential amendments to clause 80 arising from new clauses 4 and 5.

Before I explain why the amendments and new clauses are important, I should point out that we have seen three types of flooding in the past three or four months. The most recent examples have been of coastal flooding, but the Yorkshire and East Anglia coasts suffered tidal surges before Christmas to devastating effect; more than 80 houses were evacuated at Filey in my constituency and a number more in Whitby. However, we have become more accustomed to surface water and river flooding, and surface water flooding has been on the increase, and has become more of a problem, since 2007.

I want to hear from the Minister why SUDS have been delayed. The latest we heard was that there was an implementation date of April 2014. People have been trying to convince me that Brawby in my constituency suffered in 2013 not from flooding but due to surface water running off from fields and roads into the combined sewerage pipe, which then spilled water from the sewerage system back on to the road. In that case, the water did not go into anyone’s house, but at Castlegate in Malton when exactly the same thing happened—water ran off the road into the combined sewers—water then entered a house.

The missing link is an audit of existing SUDS and an examination of future SUDS when major developments and roads are built. However, from my experience, and given what we heard during the statement on the floods, there is a further problem to deal with. If water runs off a highway, it is the responsibility of the county council, the unitary council or the Highways Agency itself. However, if that water then runs into the combined pipes, it suddenly becomes the water company’s problem, although what has happened is not its fault. I hope that that unacceptable situation can be addressed through the measures that I and other members of the EFRA Committee have tabled, or through amendment 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. If fields are saturated, as is the case at present—it was the situation in my constituency between September 2012 and March 2013—highways authorities must take responsibility and create a SUD to take the excess water. I accept that such a process would involve cost, but I applaud the Government’s approach on partnership funding, so we could look to public sector partners, or be more imaginative by looking for private sector partners, such as local businesses that might be interested in investing. However, we cannot allow a situation to continue in which surface water running off a road becomes the responsibility of a water company and thus forces it to take preventive measures, given that the highways authority—whichever one it might be—should accept responsibility for it.

The EFRA Committee’s report following our pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill highlighted concern about the delayed implementation of the provisions on sustainable drainage systems in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010—it is now four years since that Act was passed. The Committee also criticised a lack of urgency on improving the management of surface water in its report on the water White Paper, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify what has been happening and why the process seems to be so complicated. As the Committee has not been convinced that the Department’s work to improve the management of surface water has involved the urgency that constituents throughout the country would expect, new clause 4 would require the Government to implement the relevant provisions of the 2010 Act within a month of the Bill being passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I believe that homes generally are covered. Our Government have persisted with his Government’s arbitrary choice of 2009 as the relevant year, although this is a new Bill and we have a still relatively new coalition Government. I was very taken by what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) said in a previous debate about 2009 having been plucked from the air as an arbitrary date, and many people will not realise that homes built after 2009 on a floodplain are simply not covered by insurance. One of the purposes of tonight’s debate is to entice the Government to seek a different year—it could be 2013 or 2015, but let us be imaginative.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will my hon. Friend clarify the difference between an insurance policy that covers a business premises and one that covers a private home? Insurers, and the Association of British Insurers, would probably find it difficult to distinguish if we were to include small businesses, but because her amendment is well intentioned, I am sure that she will be able to clarify her differentiation.

[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.