PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1539 Flood Insurance 26 MARCH 2013 Flood Insurance 1540 [Neil Parish] This is something I get quite excited about, because the people who get flooded should not have to put up with it. Other hon. Members have talked about ensuring that the money for the Bellwin scheme is available when, for example, roads are washed away by floods. Very often, the Government claim that Bellwin is available to local authorities, but when the latter claim it, the Government and the bureaucracy decide that many of the proposed schemes to cover flood damage are not eligible. That has to be dealt with. Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bellwin scheme is only for immediate and emergency repairs, which it is often not possible for local authorities to carry out? Neil Parish: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a road or bridge is washed away, the local authority might not be able to put it right immediately, but it will still have an effect on local people and local authority spend. I am keen for the Government to negotiate a system that gives people access to affordable flood insurance in high-risk areas; otherwise, we will end up putting a levy on all insurance payers, only to find that people cannot get genuinely affordable insurance. That is key. I will want to see in the proposal what the word “affordable” means, because what is affordable to one person is not affordable to another. I do not want the insurance companies gobbling up a great deal of money and then not offering affordable assurance to my constituents in villages and towns that have been flooded. 4.23 pm Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. It has been a good debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing it and the Backbench Business Committee on giving it the importance it deserves. We have heard several fantastic speeches and many comments that were true for Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) made a strong argument about the link between flood defences and flood insurance, while the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) raised concerns on behalf of the 1,627 of her constituents who will be particularly affected if flood insurance is not available. To her point about drainage, I would add that there are six provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that have not yet been enacted and which I invite the Government to implement. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is a dogged campaigner for her constituents, has made endless attempts to establish the true state of the negotiations and made a powerful argument, while the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) talked about the devastating effects of flooding in his community and made a strong point about how the increasing unpredictability of recent flood events are causing us to ask fundamental questions about the nature of risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a powerful speech about his constituency and his constituents in Morpeth, where nearly 1,000 properties were devastated in those terrible scenes. The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned the village of Leyburn and the problems faced by residents there. He rightly asked a question that I will go on to ask: would it not be terrible if those constituents came together to manage their flood risk but were let down by the Government and the insurance industry in getting a deal? Hon. Members across the House will, I am sure, agree with comments made by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) about the tragic event in Looe last week, and our condolences go out to the families of those concerned. There are other issues elsewhere in Cornwall, and the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) spoke about the inevitable unwinding of the cross-subsidy in the system, should we move to a free market position. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) made a powerful speech about the lack of urgency and care from this Government, and he put it best when he said that they must get their act together, and soon—a point I will go on to make. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) drew on matters relating to planning and deliberate flooding, reminding us that we must view this issue in the round. Finally, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—a constituency that has seen more water than most in the past 12 months—drew on the key issue of affordability and reminded the House that we are discussing a notfor-profit scheme. Ninety-six days are all that stand between today’s near-universal coverage for flood damage and an unfettered free market that will leave tens of thousands of people with homes that are uninsurable, unmortgageable and unsellable—96 days, and the clock is ticking. I am disappointed that the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), is unable to be with us today as it is clear that he is leading on negotiations. I am sure that his services as a Government troubleshooter are needed elsewhere, but whatever measure of success the Government apply, so far the process leading to whatever deal we will get has been a failure—a failure of competence, ambition and ideology, and a failure of the Prime Minister. Hon. Members might remember the Prime Minister’s comments during the extensive flooding of November last year: “I’m sure we will do a deal…We are in negotiations at the moment…We need to take a tough approach frankly and it’s important insurance companies do what they are meant to, which is provide insurance to households and we are going to make sure that happens.” Just to make it perfectly clear, he said: “I am personally involved”. That was last year, yet 200,000 high-risk homes could find themselves without insurance in 96 days. In government we negotiated a wide-ranging agreement to ensure near universal access to flooding insurance. The limitations to that scheme have been made clear, which is why in 2008 we agreed, alongside the insurance industry, that a successor deal would be needed. This Government, however, have had three years but they have squandered them. They had an insurance industry willing to negotiate to find a solution, and I made it
1541 Flood Insurance 26 MARCH 2013 Flood Insurance 1542 clear that the Opposition will take a responsible approach and support any deal to ensure affordable and available insurance. The Government had the resources of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Office, and even of No. 10 Downing street, yet with 96 days to go there is still no deal. The consequences of that are stark. Nick Starling from the Association of British Insurers warned that the only alternative to a deal with the Government “is a free market, meaning up to 200,000 people will find insurance unavailable or unaffordable.”. Ian Crowder of AA Insurance has stated: “We are concerned insurance premiums will spiral out of control if no agreement is reached between the ABI and the Government.”, and Paul Broadhead of the Building Societies Association warned chillingly: “Failure to reach agreement could also have an effect on mortgage lending in high risk areas”. The National Flood Forum stated: “Government needs to accept its responsibilities of protecting its citizens by making a decision. Failure to make a proposal will put thousands of people at risk”. In short, if the Government fail to get a deal, nearly 200,000 households could find themselves without insurance, unable to sell, and with their properties revalued sharply downwards. That could place them in negative equity and create tranches of property blight across the constituencies we represent. In other words, the stakes could not be higher. Given those consequences, it is even more worrying that the Government seem unable to admit that they are struggling. In a letter to me of 19 April 2012, the Minister stated: “I cannot comment on the timing of any future announcements on this issue but have committed to providing a further update this spring” For the sake of clarity, that was spring 2012. No response. In response to my written question of 18 June 2012, the Minister said that the Government were “at an advanced stage in intensive negotiations with the industry on alternative arrangements for when the Statement of Principles expires.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 738W.] In her written ministerial statement of 11 July 2012, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), said: “Intensive discussions with the insurance industry are continuing and we will announce further details in due course.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 30WS.] Last November, Lord De Mauley said in the other place: “We are in intense but constructive negotiations with the industry and further announcements will be made in due course”.— [Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 644.] When asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) in January, the Minister said: “We want to protect those on low incomes in flood-risk areas, and we think we have a method of doing that. We are at an advanced stage in negotiations; I will come to the House shortly, I hope, with details.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 445.] Come the next set of DEFRA questions in March, the Minister responded to another question asked by my hon. Friend by saying: “Constructive negotiations continue with the insurance industry, at the highest levels of Government, on a range of approaches that could succeed the current statement of principles.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2013; Vol. 1109, c. 559.] This situation would be comical if it were not so serious. This is the mañana Department of a mañana Government—always tomorrow and no help for today. Even if an agreement could be reached, it would require primary legislation. The Minister should admit what we now know to be true—that this will not be in place for 30 June. The 570,000 properties to which this motion applies and the 570,000 families that could find their homes uninsurable, unmortgageable and unsellable are calling for certainty, but there is none. What is the plan? To deny the risk and the social responsibility that any Government bear would deny one of the most basic laws of political gravity, which is that catastrophic risk resides with us all. When catastrophic floods devastate streets, towns and communities, we rightly expect the Government to be there to help us pick up the pieces. That is what is so short-sighted about the Government’s response to getting a deal done on flood insurance. As the Minister has previously made clear, there is only one deal on the table. The alternative is a free market that will allow insurers to leave the market for high-risk properties and that will unwind a long-standing settlement that flood insurance should be available as part of every policy. Climate change is making flooding more prevalent and less predictable, and the UK climate change risk assessment cites it as the No. 1 threat that we need to adapt to. I have made it clear that the Opposition seek to be helpful and constructive in securing a deal that protects home owners, businesses and communities vulnerable to the risk of flooding. Despite our constructive approach, Ministers have refused to brief this House or involve the Opposition in the discussions. As each week passes, it is becoming harder to defend a situation in which Ministers appear to be drifting without giving any indication of when a deal will be concluded. This Government must get a grip. They have 96 days and the clock is ticking. 4.32 pm The<strong>Parliament</strong>aryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): I echo the plaudits given by Members on both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it. I say from the start that, yes, the Government are in arduous and urgent negotiations with the insurance industry. We recognise that the Government’s first and primary role is to tackle risk by building flood defences. We are doing that, and I will talk about it later. We must get a good deal for the taxpayer and policyholders and, frankly, a better deal than the statement of principles. Therefore, insurance must be available and affordable, without adding to bills. We are not yet in a position to
Page 1 and 2: Tuesday Volume 560 26 March 2013 No
Page 3 and 4: 1449 26 MARCH 2013 1450 House of Co
Page 5 and 6: 1453 Oral Answers 26 MARCH 2013 Ora
Page 15 and 16: 1473 Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundati
Page 22 and 23: 1487 26 MARCH 2013 Rail Franchising
Page 24 and 25: 1491 Rail Franchising 26 MARCH 2013
Page 30 and 31: 1503 UK Border Agency 26 MARCH 2013
Page 32 and 33: 1507 UK Border Agency 26 MARCH 2013
Page 34 and 35: 1511 26 MARCH 2013 Points of Order
Page 36 and 37: 1515 UK Elected Representatives 26
Page 38 and 39: 1519 Business without Debate 26 MAR
Page 40 and 41: 1523 Flood Insurance 26 MARCH 2013
Page 54 and 55: 1551 Easter Adjournment 26 MARCH 20
Page 82 and 83: 1607 Energy Infrastructure (UK Supp
Page 84 and 85: 1611 Energy Infrastructure (UK Supp
Page 86 and 87: 419WH Munitions Workers 26 MARCH 20
Page 96 and 97: 439WH Fetal Anti-convulsant Syndrom
Page 98 and 99:
443WH Fetal Anti-convulsant Syndrom
Page 100 and 101:
447WH 26 MARCH 2013 HMRC Closures 4
Page 102 and 103:
451WH HMRC Closures 26 MARCH 2013 H
Page 104 and 105:
455WH HMRC Closures 26 MARCH 2013 H
Page 106 and 107:
459WH HMRC Closures 26 MARCH 2013 4
Page 108 and 109:
463WH Bee Health 26 MARCH 2013 Bee
Page 110 and 111:
467WH Bee Health 26 MARCH 2013 468W
Page 112 and 113:
471WH [Steve Webb] Under-Occupancy
Page 114 and 115:
475WH [Steve Webb] Under-Occupancy
Page 116 and 117:
77WS Written Ministerial Statements
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 129 and 130:
997W Written Answers 26 MARCH 2013
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
ORAL ANSWERS Tuesday 26 March 2013
Page 191 and 192:
Col. No. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
Page 193:
Volume 560 Tuesday No. 137 26 March
show all

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?