Water Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, on the face of it this seems a reasonable amendment and I agree with much of what has been said in the two contributions so far. The issue is actually a very specific one around the financial resilience of companies engaged in fracking. Some of these companies may be small and as a consequence of that it is very important that their financial resilience is clearly demonstrated. We already have onshore drilling in the United Kingdom so the question is whether existing regulations impacting on those operations suffice in the case of the introduction of horizontal fracturing or shale gas.

I seek the Minister’s confirmation that the Department of Energy and Climate Change already requires operators to have the financial resources to meet any liabilities, including prevention of contamination. I think that in Committee we were informed that a fund was to be created to guarantee financial sufficiency and long-term cover in the event that a company ceases trading. We have to be clear what problem this amendment seeks to solve, partly because the UK regulatory system seems to be much stronger than the regulatory system in the United States, although the US environment has been made much more robust in recent years.

I understand that our regulations are already very tough and the use of hazardous chemicals is not permitted. Can the Minister confirm this and that the statement made in Committee that the regulatory framework would be further enhanced would meet any concern that this amendment addresses?

There are three issues around water. First, there is the composition of the fracturing liquid. I understand that it already requires the approval of the Environment Agency. Can the Minister confirm that? Secondly, there are ways in which water can be contaminated. There is ground-water contamination by hydraulic fracturing, not least from poor-quality well casing. Anything that leaks out might contaminate ground-water if it can rise to the point where the ground-water is. Methane might rise into ground-water from lower down as a consequence of hydraulic fracturing. Thirdly, there is wastewater. I understand that even at the high end of shale gas extraction, it would amount to only 3% of the annual wastewater rate because extraction industries and others produce wastewater. Are the existing regulatory requirements around the handling of wastewater sufficient?

The critical element this amendment relates to is the financial resilience of the companies. Almost certainly, a number of companies that undertake shale gas fracking in the foreseeable future might not be in existence in, say, 30 years. What will be done to create a fund through pooling to enable that financial resilience to be demonstrated?

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, ensuring we have the right regulatory framework and the financial means to deal with the potential environmental impacts of fracking are important issues and therefore I most sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for raising this matter again.

In Committee, the Minister outlined the steps being taken to address the low-probability, but high-risk, scenario of a pollution incident. My noble friend Lord Shipley referred to the Minister’s response, which was that the Government and the industry are looking to put a scheme in place, and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing further news about that in the Minister’s remarks this afternoon.

We need tight regulation of fracking by the Environment Agency, the HSE and local planning authorities, but of all the impacts of fracking, not just the impacts resulting from increased pressure on water supplies or their potential contamination. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that the regulatory framework will be,

“reviewed and refined as appropriate as we move towards the production phase”.—[Official Report, 11/2/14; col. 543.]

We need a holistic view of the environmental impacts of fracking, not just of its impacts on water supplies, important though they are, and I therefore cannot support this amendment. I certainly hope the Minister will give assurances that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny of any proposed changes to the existing regulatory framework for fracking.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 88ZA, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would require onshore oil and gas operators to provide financial security when applying for an environmental permit so that funds would be available to deal with any water pollution incidents caused by the operator. The amendment relates to both the conventional and so-called unconventional, or alternative, oil and gas sectors. It would address any pollution that an operator might cause to the water environment but not, I stress, any other damage that might be caused by their activities. The same amendment was raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and was withdrawn in the light of information that I provided on our plans to address any wider environmental risks by developing a scheme to ensure that the polluter will be liable in the event of a pollution incident and that there will be sufficient funds available to cover the costs.

I reiterate that the proposed amendment would also apply to, and have implications for, our well established UK conventional onshore oil and gas industry, an industry which, over many years, has maintained a good record of environmental responsibility and competence that has enabled it to co-exist with, and provide employment for, many. Our existing regulatory framework and the application of good operational practice have served us well to prevent pollution from onshore oil and gas activities and to tackle any problems that emerge in an appropriate way. These same controls will provide the basis for the regulatory framework for any new developments in the oil and gas sector to ensure that the environment continues to be appropriately protected. I shall come back to that in a moment.

As part of the licensing process, and prior to awarding a licence, the Department of Energy and Climate Change assesses whether a company has sufficient funding for its planned operations. DECC also checks at the drilling and, where relevant, production stage that the company has appropriate insurance. Similar financial competence checks are carried out by the Environment Agency as part of the permitting process. In this way, we ensure that the companies have the necessary resources needed to back their operations.

Our regulatory framework is underpinned by a robust range of enforcement powers, which are available to the Environment Agency. This includes powers under the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009, which in the event of serious damage to surface waters or ground-water will enable it to require the polluter to pay to clear up the pollution. Ultimately, if a significant environmental risk becomes apparent, the Environment Agency has the authority to stop the activity. These powers apply to a wide range of activities undertaken by different industries, so I do not think that it would be justified to create any specific provisions for the onshore oil and gas industry.

However, the Government are very aware of the public’s concerns about the capacity of companies exploring for shale gas to address any liabilities that may arise. As I mentioned in Committee, this issue is being looked at as part of a wider review. DECC and the shale gas industry are working together to put in place a robust scheme that would cover environmental liabilities, even if the relevant operator is no longer in business. They are discussing with leading insurers to build expertise and capacity in the insurance market. The aim is to facilitate the development of products appropriate for shale gas and similar operations, which, in turn, could facilitate the development of an industry-wide scheme. As I explained, these discussions will take time, as we need to ensure that we get this right first time.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is quite specific, but perhaps I could just talk more broadly for a moment. As I have just mentioned, and noble Lords have mentioned in their speeches, there are understandable concerns about this whole area of exploration and production. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to the need to bring the public with us—and he is absolutely right. The Government are clear that we must take all appropriate measures to ensure human safety and protection of the environment. The United Kingdom has more than 50 years’ experience of regulating the onshore oil and gas industry, and we have a robust regulatory system in place to ensure that operations are carried out to high standards of safety and environmental protection.

I can assure noble Lords that the Government will allow production of shale gas to proceed only where it can be done without compromising human health or the environment. We are therefore undertaking a very careful assessment of our existing policy and regulatory framework to ensure that it is fit for purpose, as we move towards the production phase. It is not just about fracking—a process used to extract oil and gas from rock—which has been safely employed in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for many years.

Any changes to regulations that we believe are necessary following this consideration would of course be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament is also using its other mechanisms of scrutiny, including the significant inquiry into the potential impacts of shale gas being conducted by your Lordships’ Committee on Economic Affairs, which I understand is due to report soon and whose conclusions we will of course consider carefully. A couple of weeks ago, on 17 March, my noble friend Lady Verma spoke for the Government in a short debate on shale gas initiated by my noble friend Lord Borwick. Noble Lords may wish to note also that this debate is occurring simultaneously at EU level, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, and that debate will reach its own conclusions in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, as in Committee, I need to declare an interest in that I have a leasehold interest, with my wife, in a band G home on the Thames built on the flood plain. My flat is not threatened by flooding, has never been flooded and can never flood because it is on the second floor, and the whole of the south of England would have to be flooded before we were. Nevertheless, I have to report that a car park area that serves our block of flats was recently subjected to some flooding, and it is with that in mind that I feel that I should restrict my comments today and limit what I have to say, and I will not be voting on the issue.

All I want to do today, without commenting on the issue in the light of what has happened, is to read a letter which has been sent to my noble friend Lord Whitty, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Mr Owen Paterson MP and Ms Anne McIntosh MP, who I understand is the chairman of the Select Committee in the House of Commons. I simply want to read the letter, which the Minister has seen, because I think that it should be on the record so that all those in the industry outside can read what it says.

The letter is from a Mrs Beverley Morris of Topcliffe Mill, Topcliffe, Thirsk in North Yorkshire, and she has given me permission to read it. Part of it states:

“If I may give a brief summary of our current situation to further expand upon our current predicament.

This building, known as Topcliffe Mill (Mews), and built as a water powered corn mill circa 1800, was subject to a ‘once in 100 hundred year’ flood on 26th September 2012. Apartments 1, 2 and 3 on the ground floor were flooded along with 2 communal areas. Three houses in the same location behind the Mill were also flooded”.

Here we are talking about a leasehold property.

“Much of the North East was flooded during this period and Topcliffe Mill was ‘sandwiched’ between the swollen River Swale to the front of the building and the saturation of the fields to the rear.

Topcliffe Mill building insurance policy is purchased by a small management company, Town & County Properties (Wharfedale) Ltd and the premium (pre flood) was just shy of £5,000 for the year 2012, divided between the 12 homes. Post flood and following the claim, the renewal premium was and continues this year at £23,750 divided between the 12 homes, an increase of almost 500% per home. My husband and I are now paying £2,000 per year for a Band C, 4th floor”—

fourth-floor—

“domestic flat that we have made our home for the past 10 years. As we are not in a position to pay this amount up front and on demand, arrangements have been made to pay by instalment, which in itself incurs extra charges.

The ABI are offering assurances that ‘there is no systematic problem with freeholders being able to obtain insurance for their leasehold properties’. Our management company, have indeed secured building insurance, as I understand they are legally required to do, but at what price? The insurance companies, who know this, have our management company and us over a barrel it seems.

T & C Properties Ltd had their agent, J M Glendinning of Guisley in Leeds thoroughly search the insurance market for a better deal and it was to no avail. As owners, we took on the challenge of checking out the markets ourselves and if required we can supply documentary evidence of refusals, although many refused point bank on the telephone to even consider it. Our management company and their agents are also prepared to lend their testament to the situation we find ourselves in. I am at a loss to see how this scenario fits with the ABI’s explanation either now or in the future if leaseholders are excluded.

Referring again to the Food and Rural Affairs Committee meeting 11th March 2014, Ms McIntosh discussed with Aiden Kerr the issue of SME exclusion from Flood Re. He gave his explanation stating that Flood Re ‘is limited to households’. As we are not an SME but a collection of households, it begs the question, does being a leasehold define us as not a household?

During the session 11 February 2014 you drew attention to the services of the Financial Ombudsman Service. We, however, have no recourse to them to make any complaint into the risk assessment that led to our mighty high renewal premium and nor will we in the future, because the policy is not in the name of the domestic leaseholder. Would the management company complain on our behalf? Doubtful, since they are not financially affected, transferring all the associated charges directly on to the leaseholder …

The notion that one might sell up and move on, being unable to meet the management fees is something of a forlorn hope. Everyone is aware of how property values have fallen and the North East of England is not experiencing the same improvement to values as the south. Add to this a history of flood— albeit the first in 100 years. The financial security of our household stands to be jeopardised, in terms of our ability to meet mortgage payments due to over stretched resources and/or the ability to secure reasonable flood insurance.

The opportunity to afford us the same level of assistance being offered to freeholders is likely to slip by if we are not included in the Flood Re scheme. Given that the decision to have a cap in place in the medium term has been taken, I feel it only fair and just that leaseholder homes are included”.

As I said, my position has changed since the last time I debated these matters, but that testimony is from someone who is directly affected, and a five-times premium increase in the north of England on a band C flat on the fourth floor of a block of flats is something that Ministers should seriously think about. Indeed, I would have thought that Parliament would have addressed that problem.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, the aim of Flood Re is to support people at the highest risk of flooding who would struggle to find affordable insurance on the open market. The way in which it is funded, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has reminded us, is via a levy to provide a funding pool to use for the purposes of the scheme. Many contributors are likely to be at a low or no risk of flooding, but this approach spreads the risks across a large population to make it more affordable.

The question that we are trying to address here is whether it is fair to include specifically band H council-tax and post-2009-built homes—I am not going to address leaseholders because, as other noble Lords have mentioned, we are going to come back to this with an amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Grantchester. There will be a small number of asset-rich but income-poor in band H houses. In Committee in this House, the Minister confirmed that 0.5% of such households are in the five lowest-income deciles, or 45 properties in flood risk areas.

A letter to the Committee in the other place from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Dan Rogerson on 10 December 2013 confirmed that the cost to add band H houses to the scheme would be between about £1.4 million to £5.4 million, funded by an increase of up to 3% in the levy paid by all householders. Given that small number of asset-rich but income-poor, and the high cost to add these to the scheme, I do not support their inclusion in Flood Re—indeed, it would be a regressive measure—but I would certainly hope that lead local flood authorities will target some of their funding to address the impacts on vulnerable elderly people in their areas. Targeted mitigation of the impacts of this exclusion would be a far better approach and, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, is supported by the National Flood Forum.

Houses built post-2009 were excluded by the previous Administration from the statement of principles, which preceded Flood Re—the reason being that, with strong planning policies in place, such homes should have been properly assessed for flood risk. Equally, the date as set was important to avoid incentivising development in areas of flood risk. I accept that that is not perfect, but the exclusion of post-2009 from the band H properties was widely consulted on by the Government last year in advance of drawing up these proposals and was broadly supported. Hundreds of thousands of homes will benefit from Flood Re and, frankly, we need to get on with it. I am satisfied that this approach is fair and targeted at those most in need, and with regret I therefore will not be supporting the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

90ZA: Clause 53, page 108, line 43, at end insert “and this is to include guidance about the application of surplus funds during the period of operation of the scheme to support uptake of resilience measures by householders”

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, the aim of Flood Re is to provide affordable insurance for flooding and to transition to risk-reflective pricing. If a surplus of funds were built up, that could help to manage flood risk down by encouraging householders to adapt to the impacts of climate change and flooding.

Funding for Flood Re will be via a levy, set as part of the five-yearly review by government. The Bill makes clear what would happen if there was a deficit—namely, a further levy on the insurance companies—but it does not make clear what would happen if a significant surplus built up. In Committee I outlined the potential, on the basis of the Government’s own figures, that at the end of year 1 it could have at least £100 million in reserves. In the early years, the aim would be to build this figure up to meet potential claims. The maximum reserves that Flood Re should need in any one year, after paying for reinsurance and administration, is an amount equal to the reinsurance policy threshold. This is due to be £250 million. If there is a sizeable flood during the lifetime of Flood Re it will need to pay the first £250 million, with the rest paid for by a claim on the reinsurance policy. It will then need to build up the reserve again the following year.

Ministers and insurers may well want to build up a slightly higher reserve in order to protect against a possible deficit if there are two bad years in a row, so there may be no surplus, as my noble friend Lord Cathcart rightly pointed out in Committee. Over the lifetime of the scheme, though, there may be a build-up of reserves if there are fewer claims than anticipated. Given that the ABI is now saying that the number of households it expects to be underwritten by Flood Re is 350,000 rather than the original figure of 500,000, which was the basis of the Government’s impact assessment, that is certainly possible. The ABI made it quite clear to me that its intention was for any surplus to be returned to ABI members. We need to ensure that Flood Re does not inadvertently lead to insurers profiteering from excess levy income being returned to them. It may not be passed back to customers automatically but could lead to a reduction in the future levy on bills. It would be better for the levy to be reduced in advance if a reasonable reserve has already been built up or, better still, for the excess to be spent on managing down the flood risk. I am envisaging paying not for flood defences but for things like grants to low-income households for home flood protection measures. I would not want to pin down in detail in this legislation what levels of surplus of reserves Flood Re should be able to build up or what will happen in those circumstances but a marker needs to be put down that, if significant reserves are secured, such reserves may be used to incentivise Flood Re policyholders to fund household resilience measures.

This amendment, which I am glad to say has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, allows this issue to be explored by the Government and Flood Re administrators during their five-yearly review of the scheme. It gives flexibility but encourages managing down flood risk if, and only if, significant surpluses are built up. I beg to move.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has said, this amendment is concerned with the possible surplus or cash reserves that Flood Re might build up. We have to recognise that although Flood Re is being designed as an integral part of the insurance industry it will be a public body spending public money and will operate on a not-for-profit basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has indicated and the Government’s own figures suggest that there might be reserves of more than £100 million after one year. If that surplus exceeds the amount that is required to cover claims in any one year—again, the noble Baroness indicated a figure of £250 million—it would seem perfectly reasonable for that money to be used to manage down Flood Re’s own exposure to future claims and it could do so in a highly cost-effective way. This is about value for money. One estimate is that £4,000 spent on a property could prevent a number of claims on Flood Re averaging £45,000 a time, so the return on investment is going to be enormous.

The adaptation sub-committee which I chair has estimated that there are 190,000 properties in England where fitting flood-protection measures would be cost-effective, but progress in fitting them at household level has been very slow. In fact, the rate of uptake would need to increase by a factor of 20 to fit all such measures within the lifetime of Flood Re. This amendment recognises the potential to do more to protect high-risk households and the opportunity that the surplus reserves might represent. Investing in resilience now would leave high-risk households better able to afford flood insurance once Flood Re has withdrawn and, rather than adding to the cost of the levy, investing in this way promises to help minimise the costs of Flood Re over the lifetime of the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Parminter]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and my noble friend Lord Shipley, for their support for this amendment. My noble friend Lord Cathcart suggested that I may have misunderstood the insurance industry. We all have our dirty secrets, and many noble Lords may think of me as a squeaky-clean campaigner, but I have to say that I have been employed in the City by Lloyd’s of London, so I do know a thing or two about insurance.

I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the wording of the amendment may not be as clear as we would all hope to achieve to ensure that any surplus funds are used to manage down flood risk and help people to transition to a better place at the end of this temporary scheme. I hoped that it would be seen to be not prescriptive and unhelpful and I am very grateful again for the comments of my noble friend the Minister and for his kind offer of discussions with myself and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which we are both delighted to accept. We will return to this matter at Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90ZA withdrawn.