Water Bill

Debate between Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cameron of Dillington

Monday 31st March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I do not have quite as many questions as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but I have a similar sense of the injustice and unfairness that are implicit within the Flood Re scheme.

I am not quite sure what the opposite of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut is, but perhaps it is taking a bucket to stop a flood or maybe it is using the current Flood Re scheme to deal with the domestic flood insurance problems and then excluding more than half of all UK households. I know that there is then the added problem of SMEs, but I totally accept that for the present the scheme is designed to tackle the domestic marketplace.

In my view, the proposed scheme is so hedged about with exemptions that it fails to get to the heart of the domestic flood insurance problem. Even without SMEs, most buildings will not be covered by the scheme. Exclusions include: nearly all leasehold properties; the entire private rented sector; housing association schemes, whether shared equity or let—and are these not the very people whom we are trying to protect?—council houses; homes built after 2009; and properties in council tax band H. Some 60% of all domestic properties are specifically excluded. Flood Re, in this case, is not fit for purpose. It would have been so much more simple, fair, just and equitable to have included all of the above and dealt with the problem of excess demand on funds by either capping individual payouts or adjusting the level of premium at which Flood Re cuts in. It seems unimaginative to me to exclude 60% of all properties as a way of mitigating the risk.

Incidentally, the average household premium is just under £200, so the 2.2% levy amounts to an average of £4.40, not the £10.50 being bandied about. When I met with the ABI, it seemed to have no satisfactory explanation for the difference in these figures, so I have no idea where the £10.50 came from. The reason I mention this is that, if a £10.50 premium is considered acceptable, and the real figure is actually much less, then maybe adjusting the amount of supplementary levy on the premium could also be a way of mitigating risk in the early years of Flood Re. Just to exclude 60% of the properties surely undermines the whole purpose of the scheme.

Turning to the various unjustifiable domestic exclusions, I will deal with them one by one, starting with properties in council tax band H. First, as confirmed by ABI, the inclusion of such properties would not in any way raise the cost of the scheme. If, as suggested by Hiscox, a cap of, say, £160,000 were put on any one payout from the scheme, their inclusion would not increase by one jot the risk of failure of the Flood Re scheme. Noble Lords should bear in mind that those who are being excluded are not paying the £4.40 supplementary levy or even the £10.50 towards the scheme: they will be paying nearer to £50, £60 or £70, because of the value of their house, towards a scheme that specifically excludes them. They will not all be rich; many of them will be elderly, cash poor and vulnerable.

I of course understand the politics at work here; as I said, this exclusion is an entirely political decision. If they cannot be included in the scheme, however—which, I agree, seems unlikely at this stage—I would strongly support the National Flood Forum’s proposal that they should be helped with any mitigation measures possible, either through locally targeted schemes or from the Flood Re pot once it has been built up, as in Amendment 90ZA, put forward by my noble friend Lord Krebs and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. They should not be totally abandoned when they are contributing so much towards the scheme itself.

Turning to post-2009 properties, apart from people in this House and some people involved in the insurance industry, I have yet to find a single person in real life who knows anything about this 2009 cut-off and the effect it may have on their insurance in 2015. Included within that group of innocents are two people who actually work in the insurance industry. I know that some of your Lordships are saying, “Look, we have to make an example here. We must stop developers building on the flood-plains and the only way to do it is to make these properties uninsurable against flood risk”. To me, that misses the point. For a start, society—that is you, me and the local planning authority—gave permission for these houses to be built. Currently, the Government are actually helping these people to buy these houses through their Help to Buy scheme. The Environment Agency only comments on 6.6% of all applications; perhaps it should have some responsibility. My point is that, if we do not want houses built, we have to stop them at source and not just take it out on the poor, unfortunate souls who—probably totally unknowingly—end up living in these properties either as owners or, worse still, as tenants, who of course are going to be doubly excluded.

Furthermore, to have a blanket exclusion on all post-2009 properties also misses the point. We are not just talking here about houses on the designated flood-plain; we are talking about all houses that represent an insurance risk. We are talking about houses that probably started flooding since 2009 for a variety of reasons. There are more and more examples now of houses flooding because of rising ground-water, even on hillsides. There are many examples of houses flooding from surface water, sometimes because of activities upstream—possibly subsequent to 2009—over which the householder had no control; for example, another development that increases the speed of run-off. There are also houses where the weather pattern has changed and, after two floods, the cost of insurance becomes unbearable. Therefore, just to have a blanket exclusion of all properties built after 2009 seems completely unnecessary and grossly unfair. It is well known that there are several examples, most notably in Hull, where there are properties side by side, one of which will be included and the other, because of this rule, will not be—you can almost guarantee that neither of the owners knew their future fate when they chose which one to buy.

Of course, the biggest exclusion is the leasehold and rented sector. I will leave my sense of injustice about those properties until we get to Amendment 89B from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

All in all, I realise that it is probably too late to upset the apple cart of this version of Flood Re at this stage. However, many in the insurance industry are pretty unhappy about it, largely because they know that, when the blatant injustices become obvious, they and not the politicians will get the blame. I hope that the scheme works for those lucky 40% who find themselves included, but it would have been much more imaginative to have made the scheme much more inclusive, if not all-inclusive, and to have mitigated the risk in other ways. I hope that when it comes to the various regulations bringing this scheme into effect, some thought will be given to those who have inadvertently found themselves on the wrong side of the legislator’s pen.

[Lord Crickhowell (Con)]

My Lords, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Earl for moving this amendment and to the noble Lord who just spoke for spelling out in great detail some of the shortcomings that can be identified. I think it is 37 years since I was a director of a firm of Lloyd’s insurance brokers, on the board of a large Lloyd’s underwriting agency and losing money at Lloyd’s. I do not think I must declare an interest for that, though, like others, I must declare one as living in a band H property.

I have been very uncomfortable about this scheme, based not so much on the residue of knowledge long forgotten as on the political outlay that I see arising when the whole scheme does not produce the results that most people expect. I told my noble friend Lord de Mauley on Thursday morning, when we happened to meet, that I had just received an e-mail from the chief executive of Hiscox. My noble friend asked me to send a copy of that to him—although he was copied into it, apparently he had not seen it. I said I would come back to this issue because the Hiscox e-mail raised a number of very significant issues that must be addressed. I do not have to go through them all in detail because we had very good summaries from both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

Hiscox points out that the scheme, though clearly desirable in principle, will not solve the problem of unaffordable flood insurance that it was created to address. Nor does it take into account the changing nature of flood. Hiscox points out that of the 885,000 homes in high-risk areas more than 350,000—3.8% of the total housing stock—will be excluded. While some of those will be commercially owned properties able to buy commercial insurance, a proportion will be private buy-to-let properties. What is more, Hiscox says it is likely that this underestimates the scale of the problem. The noble Earl pointed out the uncertainties about the numbers. Hiscox indicates that 80% of its claims came from homes that it did not consider to be at flood risk. It is not just homes sitting in obvious flood plains, of the sort with which I had to deal when chairman of the National Rivers Authority. No one is more indignant about some of the planning decisions that have been taken there than I am.

The whole thing has been arrived at by negotiation between the Government and the Association of British Insurers. No doubt we will be told that this is the best deal that can be done at present. I am not sure we should be satisfied with that. Clearly quite a number of active insurers do not believe it is the best possible scheme and, for the reasons well elaborated by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, it does not appear fair.

Water Bill

Debate between Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cameron of Dillington

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, it seems strange to be talking about possible water shortages and abstraction reform in one of the wettest Januarys since records began. I remind noble Lords that January is named after the Roman double-headed god, Janus. If one head is pointing to the climate change extreme of floods, the other is undoubtedly pointing to drought.

I am not certain that either this group of amendments or the previous group totally grip the issue of likely water shortages and the much needed reform of the abstraction regime, which should be put in place as soon as possible. One of the lessons of the disaster of the Somerset Levels is that we should not wait until disaster strikes before taking action and rushing through reforms. At one of the side meetings last week, which many noble Lords attended, we heard that improvements in water supply and demand take a long time. We heard, for instance, how the mere extension of a reservoir in Essex took 20 years to arrange—10 years to prove the case and 10 years to get the planning through. Equally, universal metering, on the demand side—which of course is worth several reservoirs and is not dependent on rain—would also take a very long time to achieve, particularly if we are to bring consumers along with us, which is very important.

To avoid the likely dire situation that we will have in the future, we should use the Water Bill to ensure that disaster does not strike some time in the future. The dire situations relate to population increases, more demand for energy—energy is a huge user of water, as I am sure many noble Lords know—and more droughts, which are very likely. All these factors require greater flexibility in the management of our abstraction regime.

There are parallels with the energy industry. Some of us were dealing with the Energy Bill at the end of last year and tried to ensure that in the next 10 or 20 years’ time there would be a sufficient balance of supply to demand within the energy industry. All the time, we were aware that 10 years ago no one had looked carefully at this balance of supply and demand. We are quite likely to face power cuts in the next couple of years—as many noble Lords are aware—because of this lack of forethought in the past decade.

During the passage of the Energy Bill, my noble friend Lord Oxburgh, who I am sorry to see has left his place, tabled an amendment to establish a council of wise men who would look at the energy industry in the long term, see what was needed and ensure that the right precautions were in place. If the water industry had a group of wise men now, they would be telling us to put a road map in the Bill to take us as speedily as possible towards overall abstraction reform in universal metering and not to wait until the next decade, which seems to be the form, to put this in place.

I agree that abstraction reform is a serious issue. There will undoubtedly be winners and losers in the process whose interests must be given voice in the democratic process. However, I am fearful that Amendment 104, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will come to in a minute, might put an even greater brake on the introduction of reforms than the long drawn-out process seemingly currently envisaged by Defra. If I have misunderstood Amendment 104, I look forward to being corrected. In the mean time, I strongly support Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked if it was right to discuss the possibility of drought in the middle of floods. I can assure him that it is absolutely right. My experience in the NRA was that, whenever we had a flood it was almost immediately followed by a drought, and whenever we had a drought it was almost immediately followed by a flood. It was an almost invariable rule, so I am sure that he is right that we should be addressing these issues.

When speaking to my noble friend’s previous amendment, I said that the one area to which I might want to return was reform of the abstraction licensing regime. I spoke about it in some detail at Second Reading and I do not want to repeat what I said then. It was one of the central problems that we had to deal with in my time in the NRA.

I disagree with the noble Lord who has just spoken when he says that the Government should get this issue into the Bill and that it is very urgent. My understanding is that the Government are getting on with the kind of review and detailed discussions with just the sort of people that he suggested they should be meeting. However, they have pointed out that the issue is extremely complicated and cannot be rushed. While I, perhaps on the basis of experience, have always been one of the first to criticise the timescale on which some government departments operate, I have a good deal of sympathy with the need to take adequate time on this. This view was reinforced by the fact that at one of the briefing meetings, the representative of—I think—Anglia Water told us that it was undertaking fairly basic research into the resources available in the region. It was suddenly brought home to me that we do not know a great deal about the availability of ground water resources in many of our regions. We know how much water is going down the rivers, but we still need quite a lot of information before we have the kind of policy that we all want to see.

While we must get on with it, I am not sure it is right to think that we can put into this Bill the requirements that will follow the result of this important inquiry and examination. However, my noble friend Lady Parminter is right in thinking that there should be safeguards in the Bill so that when the results of the review come through, we can be certain that the necessary steps and measures are taken. I am not sure how that should be drafted or whether the noble Baroness has got the drafting quite right, but I sympathise with her desire to write safeguards into the Bill so that we are not left with a great gaping hole when we get the results of the very important review that is under way. I will therefore listen with great care and interest to what the Minister says in reply to this debate.

Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cameron of Dillington

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I support this amendment. I will not repeat the much more eloquently phrased words of my noble friend Lord Oxburgh and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. All that I should like to say is that power generation is a long-term game. From start to finish, a major power plant takes between seven and, let us say, 12 years to get from conception to being able to produce power. For instance, Hinkley Point C, which is in my county of Somerset, has already been on the planning board for 10 years and probably has another nine or 10 years to go before it takes off—if it does take off—and produces any power.

However, Parliaments last for five years and Ministers almost certainly last for even less time. I notice that the current Secretary of State seems to be saying that there will be no power cuts in 2016. It is extremely likely that he will not be there in 2016 to lose face if there are any power cuts, or not to lose face if there are none. Meanwhile, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has put much more eloquently than I could, civil servants seem to come and go, seemingly without the baton being passed between them. No one is playing the long-term game. Therefore, this amendment is much needed because never again must we find ourselves drifting into the abyss of potential power cuts.

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have spoken on this Bill, although during the Queen’s Speech debate, I made remarks very similar to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and others about the crisis that we face in the energy industry. On this occasion, I am prompted to rise for three reasons, all of which involve personal experience. The first has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. He served with me and the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, on the Science and Technology Committee, which looked at nuclear research and development. As he said, it was one of the most dismal experiences that many of us have had.

In our report, we spoke of the extraordinary discrepancy between, on the one hand, the view of some senior government officials and the Secretary of State and, on the other, the views of independent experts from academia, industry, nuclear agencies, the regulator and the Government’s own advisers. A fundamental change in the Government’s approach to nuclear R&D is needed. We went on to recommend an R&D road map and an R&D board. As my noble friend has already pointed out, it must be said that the Government went a good way to meeting a great many of our recommendations. Although they did not set up the advisory board in quite the way we proposed, as a quango, they did set up a body under the chief scientist armed with the advice of experts of just the kind that we were suggesting, with the power and duty to report in public and to make recommendations. On that particular issue, we have made progress. There is a considerable similarity between the recommendations that we made on that occasion and the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has tabled: essentially, we need an independent expert body, not just to advise the Government but to advise them in public and on the record so that Parliament is aware of what is going on and can take some action accordingly.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of advice given publicly. Reference has already been made to the plethora of consultancies. I have some knowledge about the work of these consultancies; I have good contacts with those who give advice in this field to the Government, and indeed to Governments around the world. One prominent firm says that it now dreads being asked to give advice to DECC because it realises that that will involve a great waste of time. What happens is something like this: the department is faced with difficult problems; there is a lack of long-term continuity and expertise, as well described by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh; and there is the agonised fear among the officials involved that they may be held responsible for any advice given to Ministers that turns out to be faulty, so they commission a consultancy. At long last and after due deliberation, the consultancy firm produces a report, which causes perhaps even greater consternation within the department because it actually gives advice and makes recommendations. Officials then think to themselves, “This is even more dangerous because this advice looks potentially extremely worrying, and we may be blamed even more for what we do”, and the whole thing goes on. Sometimes yet another consultancy is called in and the whole department gets bogged down in a sort of quagmire.

I know that the Government say that they are doing something about this. I am a member of the Constitution Committee and when the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right honourable friend Francis Maude, came before us, I raised this issue with him. He said, Oh yes, of course we are aware that there has been a problem of this kind. We are aware that there are far too many consultancies and that the whole system is getting bogged down, but we are doing something about it. We are taking action, and it’s no longer going to happen. I wish I thought that was true, but I fear that it is not. It is therefore vital that we take steps to ensure that consultancy advice is given by real experts from outside the department, and given publicly.

In this context, I happened to notice in Country Life of 3 August an editorial on the setting up of the new arrangements for English Heritage and the so-called National Heritage Protection Service, which is taking over the principal advisory role to government. The leading article asks: who is effectively to argue its case? If heritage protection is to have any teeth at all, the article says, it now needs to return to the ministry. I cannot think of a more disastrous piece of advice. It is quite certain that if that happened, that would be the last that we heard of the advice, which would be lost for ever in the maw of government, and the work of English Heritage would be almost forgotten.