Flood Insurance

Debate between Andrew Smith and Lord Benyon

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am really short of time, but I will respond to the point that I believe the hon. Gentleman wants to make. If I have time to give way at the end, I will do so.

As Ministers have repeatedly made clear, the main aim of our work has always been to reach an agreement whereby insurance bills remain affordable, without placing unacceptable and unsustainable costs on wider policyholders. The Government have been doing a lot to support the continued availability of affordable insurance. Reducing flood risk will always be the best and most sustainable solution. Despite difficult times, we are on track to spend more than £2.3 billion to deliver better protection from flooding and coastal erosion to more than 165,000 homes over the four years to 2015. Our new system of partnership funding has brought in an additional £148 million on top of that from external partners. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), have benefited from that in their constituencies. I give full praise to him and his constituents for the leadership that they have shown.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked why there was nothing in the Budget, but £120 million of investment was announced in the autumn statement. Many of those schemes are shovel-ready and proceeding, and they are a great comfort to constituents.

Despite last year being the second wettest on record, more than 200,000 homes were protected from flooding because of defences already in place. The Environment Agency’s flood warning service provided additional support; evidence is emerging that many houses avoid flooding because of the better flood warning system. We have estimated that, for every property that suffered flooding last year and in January, more than 25 homes were protected because of flood defences and maintenance work and because of the work of the Environment Agency, local authorities and other front-line responders. More than 200,000 householders are therefore benefiting from the Government’s continued investment in managing flood risk.

Many hon. Members are impatient for information on the Government’s discussions. I am impatient to share the details, but it would be quite wrong to go into too much detail.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in offering commiserations to her constituent and her family for their loss. I entirely agree with her that all available information must be made publicly available, so that we can get to the bottom of what precisely happened.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

If I can, I will try to give way in a moment.

We have recently announced a flood resilience community pathfinder scheme for Cornwall and a number of other parts of the country. In my hon. Friend’s case, £476,000 will be spent in Cornwall.

The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) said that the statement of principles was universal insurance.

[Richard Benyon]

Perhaps that is not what the hon. Gentleman said. The statement of principles is not universal —not by a long chalk—which is part of the problem. Everything he said in his quote from the Prime Minister is absolutely right, and I thank him for pointing it out.

When Conservatives were in opposition in 2008, it was agreed that a successor to the statement of principles would be required. The previous Government agreed that a market could emerge after the end of the agreement. The statement of principles says that there will be no need for specific agreements after June 2013. All hon. Members disagree with that and believe that we need a follow-up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, to whom I want to give time to make a winding-up speech, asked about the Government’s view of a flood mutual, which is an important question. We are looking very closely at the proposal, which is a possible alternative to “Flood Re”. We are working closely with those who are making that proposal.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to be very brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Smith]

The Minister said earlier that he was impatient to share information with the House. Can he tell us what the Government’s sticking point—their fundamental problem—is with the “Flood Re” proposal?

[Richard Benyon]

I will come on to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) talked about flood insurance in the context of terrorism, but those are entirely different types of insurance. The pool model does work for some of them, but the “Flood Re” model would not work in this case, because it does not provide support for the cost of that cover. He made the point that “Flood Re” is a not-for-profit solution. Well, yes and no, in that the Government would pay through a levy—so householders are paying for it with an element of underwriting—but taking away risk from the most at risk is an advantage to the industry. So we must be very careful. The Minister’s job is to look after the taxpayer and householder. Yes, we need a solution, but not at any price. Whoever was standing at the Dispatch Box, they would not want to bring before the House a deal that was unworkable or that would cause the wrong sort of increases for some of the most at risk and hard up of our constituents. We need to get this right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) made a point about farmland and the wider risk. When farmland is flooded as part of a formal flood alleviation scheme, the landowner is compensated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton introduced the debate with a powerful speech. He made a point about the governance of any arrangements. He was right to do so, and it is important that we take forward his concerns and make those arrangements clear in the announcement. I can assure him that the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working closely.

I was concerned that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) talked about shambolic local flood administration in her constituency. We have implemented the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which arose from Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations after 2007. I note that she said that that is not happening in her constituency, and I am happy to take that up.

Many hon. Members made good points, which I could probably summarise as, “We want a decision and an announcement soon, because our constituents are worried.” I can understand that. We are doing other things to help those who might be struggling to find affordable insurance. We have published a guide to obtaining flood insurance in high flood risk areas in collaboration with the National Flood Forum, Which? and insurance industry representatives. The guide helps people navigate through the insurance market and acts as a signpost to actions that individuals can take to reduce their flood risk.

Insurance can be found for reasonable prices if people talk to their insurer about their specific circumstances. The Environment Agency can provide supporting evidence on the local flood risk, for free, which people can use in discussions, and I want to hear from hon. Members if that is not happening. Different companies take different approaches to flood risk and it almost always pays to shop around.

I recognise the great concern on both sides of the House on this matter. I want to give hon. Members and their constituents the assurance that they want, but I will not do it at any price. Yes, it has taken longer than any of us would have wished, but I hope that the deal we bring to the House will be better than what we have now, especially for those of our constituents who are on low incomes.

Flood Defences

Debate between Andrew Smith and Lord Benyon

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon]

If the weir does not work, properties will be flooded. We can argue that the existing paddle and rymer weir works perfectly well, but as my hon. Friend knows, the Environment Agency has received consultants’ reports stating that the working load is way in excess of what one would normally allow for employees. I am sure that that she would agree that she and I as employers in business would have to take note of advice that is given. One always tries to do that proportionately, but it must be understood that the advice was given. It would be difficult for the Government to sit at arm’s length and ignore advice that the loading is four times too high and the risks that emanate from that. It is difficult for Ministers to overrule such advice, but I will talk about that further.

The Health and Safety Executive has seen the reports from the Environment Agency and the Appleton Weir Action Group and has written back in support of the agency’s position. As a responsible employer, the Environment Agency cannot ignore the advice of the Health and Safety Executive. Sitting back and doing nothing is no longer an option. The weir clearly poses risks to those who must operate it and to those live in the neighbouring constituency. An assessment of risk is not just about whether there have been accidents, but about the potential for accidents. I am a sceptic of all matters relating to health and safety, and I do not come to the matter as a quisling of the health and safety industry, for that is what it has become. I come to it as a sceptic, like my hon. Friend. I have looked at the matter in great detail, and if I were an employer on the board of the Environment Agency, I would find it difficult to ignore the report.

That brings me to the flood benefits of the weir, and why they have not been assessed for this project. The flood risk in the area is well known. Around 80 houses behind the north bank have a 1% chance or greater of flooding each year. In flood conditions, the Northmoor weir is opened, so that flood water can pass through as quickly as possible. The relationship between the weir structure and flood risk is well understood and would not benefit from further investigation. Doing that would have added unnecessary and damaging cost to an already expensive project.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

If the Minister is relying for this part of his argument on the flood prevention benefit that he supposes exists, is it not right, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) said, that there should be a cost-benefit analysis? If that is not made and he is relying on the health and safety part of his argument, how can be justify taking the cost from the flood prevention budget? Surely, he cannot have it both ways.

[Richard Benyon]

During my long discussions with the Environment Agency, I became convinced that it really does understand the flood risks. I do not believe that it spends money without looking carefully at the alternatives. I have seen all eight or nine alternatives that have been presented—many of them were untried and untested as a means of lifting the paddle and rymers out using mechanical systems—as well as replacements with alternative schemes. All of them, because of the design processes that would have to be applied and the further delay, would have cost more. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is understood throughout the Environment Agency and my Department that every penny that we spend must be spent in the right way. We ensure that the budgets that we manage go as far as possible, and I will come on to explain why the spending must go ahead.

Given that something must be done, the Environment Agency has focused on identifying the cheapest and best way to solve the problem. It looked into the matter in considerable detail, and I have seen the summary of the detailed analysis, which points to the radial gate solution that the agency is pursuing. The other options would be more expensive, and in some cases there would be no guarantee that they would even work, because they are untried in other areas. Replacing the weir will not remove risks altogether, but it will reduce them to a reasonable level for the staff concerned and provide more reliable long-term protection for those living on the flood plain to the north.

When reviewing the background to the matter, I also considered the steps the Environment Agency has taken to consult local residents on the project. Objections have been raised, primarily from those who are not at risk of flooding, but who will suffer increased traffic and disruption during the work, and I entirely understand that.

Flood Defences

Debate between Andrew Smith and Lord Benyon

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. On behalf of her constituents, she has raised the subject through every conceivable parliamentary mechanism, and I entirely understand why. I know that the matter is extremely important to her constituents. My hon. Friend was right to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited Pickering. She saw the project at first hand, and returned to the Department impressed with innovative ideas that involved a variety of mechanisms, particularly those that incorporated the natural environment as a flood alleviation and flood resilience asset. I note the presence of right hon. and hon. Members from other areas that face similar problems. The concept of holding back water is vital to a variety of communities and we want to ensure that our legislation supports common sense and is governed by proportionate rules.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked a number of questions, and I shall answer some of them before allowing others to intervene. She has submitted some written questions, and she will receive a reply in the next day or so. Today, she asked a question about the number of people who live below a reservoir risk. I understand that it is not 10 properties; the definition of a community in this instance is considered to be not less than about 10 persons who could be affected by a disastrous breach as a result of the under-provision of spillway capacity. That is the crux of the issue. The independent assessment said that the reservoir would require greater spillway capacity. To me and to other laymen, that does not sound a massive issue, but it increased the cost of the project way beyond what was possible.

Certain questions float around, such as what is a bund, and what is a reservoir? A flood defence bund is an embankment designed to prevent flood-water flowing from a watercourse and flooding adjacent land. The water is held up and then released through a controlled mechanism. We have to be compliant with the Reservoir Act 1975, which my hon. Friend identifies as the villain of the piece.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are reviewing the guidance. I do not know whether she has seen a copy of it, but I have. It is thick and highly technical. She is right that the independent assessors from the Institution of Civil Engineers who make these judgments are singularly liable. Once the asset is built, it will be the Government who are liable through the Environment Agency. At the moment, however, liability for the level of comfort that has to be achieved rests with individuals, so they want to get it right. There is undoubtedly an incentive for them to be precautionary, but the Government have to ensure that, in our desperate desire to see comfort given to communities such as Pickering, we do not rush measures through that in years to come, with the climate changing as we know it is, may pose catastrophic risks for many people.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given that this was a pilot project of national significance designed to find out what could be achieved through land management to reduce flooding—an issue of concern in many parts of the country, including my constituency—what implications will the shortcomings that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) rightly identified have for the evaluation of the pilot for other areas?

[Richard Benyon]

That is a key point, and I will come on to talk about how we are reviewing the situation, principally in Pickering, and the implications that it will have for other areas.

The Environment Agency is responsible for technical judgments on flow rates and volumes. The Institution of Civil Engineers is the expert, and it is vital that we have such organisations. The Environment Agency has assessed with the panel engineer the volume of water that needs to be stored. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made a point about powers that I may or may not have to do with variation. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the threshold has been reduced from 25,000 to 10,000 cubic metres. That is the area in which Ministers can apply variation, depending on the circumstances. However, that element of the Act has yet to be formally adopted. When it is, that variation will be in the power of Ministers. Under the current scheme, the Secretary of State and I do not have the power to vary the rates.