(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set national minimum
requirements for flood mitigation and protection measures in new
build public and private properties enforced by local planning
authorities; to place reporting requirements on local and
national government in relation to flood prevention measures; to
establish a certification scheme for improvements to domestic and
commercial properties for flood prevention and mitigation
purposes and an accreditation scheme for installers of such
improvements; to require insurers to take account of such
improvements and any existing flood prevention and mitigation
measures that were planning permission requirements when
determining premiums; to extend eligibility to the Flood
Reinsurance scheme under section 64 of the Water Act 2014 to
small and medium-sized enterprises and homes built after 2009;
and for connected purposes.
Last Sunday in Glasgow, we saw potentially the most consequential
gathering in world history—I refer, of course, to COP26. The
Prime Minister opened that conference by acknowledging that,
unless we act soon, we would see savage changes in our climate
that could have destructive effects on life as we know it. An
inevitable consequence of climate change is a change in weather
patterns. In 2020, the UN’s environment programme highlighted
that increased flooding is likely to be one of the early visible
signs of climate change. In Hull and the East Riding of
Yorkshire—indeed in Yorkshire, the midlands, the south-west and
the south-east—we understand that because it is already
happening. We remember Storm Ciara and Storm Dennis. In Hull and
the East Riding of Yorkshire, we remember the devastation of the
2007 floods to homes, schools and businesses. We also remember
the tidal surge of 2013 and the city being cut off from the M62
by a flooded A63 in 2019.
There have been some positive advancements in our response to the
increasing problems of flooding over the last 15 years, with the
Flood Re scheme one good example, but there is still more to do.
My recent survey of residents in Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle highlighted their continuing concerns about flood
protection and readiness. My Bill seeks to address some of those
concerns and to put all future building developments on a
sustainable footing.
The long title of the Bill, which I have just read out, sets out
five requirements that can be summarised under three areas.
First, to set out binding planning requirements for properties,
enforced by local authorities. Secondly, to create a scheme,
binding on the insurance industry, to recognise flood resilience
measures in their premiums. And thirdly, to extend the Flood Re
scheme further.
Provided that they are within the scope of current planning law,
the property flood resilience measures required in new build
properties are currently set by local planning authorities in
pre-commencement conditions. That results in adjacent local
authorities having different requirements in flood zones with the
same rating, which is not only inconsistent but hampers
collaboration by allowing local authorities to export their
flood-related problems to other areas.
My Bill would create a level playing field by setting minimum
standards nationwide. I hope these minimum standards would be
along the lines of the highly successful measures put in place by
Hull City Council and those supported by the Association of
British Insurers, which is calling for the Government to enact
schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and align
planning policy related to sustainable drainage systems, as
recommended by the Climate Change Committee. This common-sense
move is supported by both the insurance industry and Flood Re in
its most recent review, and it can be supported by Members on
both sides of the House. It is about prevention not cure, and it
is about building homes that are fit for a changing future.
At present there is no mandatory requirement for insurers to
lower premiums for homes where flood risk is mitigated by flood
resilience or protection measures. That is largely due to lack of
evidence, both at a landscape scale and at the level of
individual properties. The only information that insurers
currently use in setting premiums with regard to flood risk is
commercially available mapping data. As data from national and
local government bodies on flood mitigation infrastructure such
as lagoons, barriers and sustainable drainage systems is not
readily available, it is not used. There is no requirement on the
industry to request information at the level of individual
properties. That situation must change.
On landscape and infrastructure, the relevant Government agencies
must make readily available the information on all flood
prevention and mitigation measures in place regionally and
locally. The information already exists; it is a matter of
collation and access. Once the information is available, insurers
must make use of it and incorporate it into their premium
calculations. At the individual property level, discounted
insurance premiums should be offered for properties with flood
resistance measures installed. Indeed, that was a recommendation
of Flood Re in its recent five-yearly review.
The ABI’s position is that insurers lack reliable data on the
relative effectiveness of measures and lack confidence in their
correct installation. Some measures, such as the raising of
electrical cabling and plug points above ground level, seem
self-evidently beneficial and I have heard conflicting accounts
of whether sufficient data on the effectiveness of such measures
already exists. However, it would be helpful to everyone
concerned to have agreement and clarity on the range of effective
measures on which insurers will offer discounts. As well as
confidence in the competency of installers, consumers need
assurance that putting these protection measures in their home
will not only increase resilience to flooding but lower premiums,
which is why my Bill proposes a statutory certification scheme.
There would need to be funding available to set the standards,
and I believe it would be a good idea to make funding available
to our universities and industry for the creation and production
of new technologies that would lower the risk further.
Let me be clear: Flood Re is a good scheme and is one that I
support—I also support many of the recommendations in the latest
five-yearly review—but it has two major flaws. First, it does not
cover homes built after 2009. I can see the logic, as this
discourages building in flood zones, and it was imagined that
such homes would be built to be flood resilient, but the truth is
that in too many cases this has simply not happened. As a result
people find themselves, through no fault of their own, living in
flood-prone areas with no flood resilience measures and without
cover by the scheme.
I hope my Bill would make it impossible to build a house without
adequate flood protections, but in the meantime we need to move
Flood Re eligibility forward to a suitable date so that people
who are not covered as a result of the current planning system
are not left without cover or facing very high premiums.
Secondly, Flood Re needs to cover small and medium-sized
enterprises. I appreciate that commercial insurance is different
from residential insurance, and I appreciate that commercial
insurance effectively has two aspects: the aspect covering a
business’s building and the aspect covering its stock and other
business needs. I also appreciate that Flood Re may not be
suitable to cover stock and business needs, but why can it not be
extended to cover the building aspect? Is covering the structural
aspect of a residential building not the same as covering the
structural aspect of a commercial building? My Bill would extend
Flood Re to offer that very protection. It would allow businesses
affected by flooding to be in a position to be back on their feet
and trading more quickly.
This is not a party political issue, nor should it be a subject
of party political point scoring. It is an issue that affects
people and businesses in constituencies right across the nation,
represented by Members from all parties. It is an issue that will
continue to affect those people and businesses and, as the
effects of climate change become more acute, it will become
deeper and wider.
Many of the proposals in this Bill have the support of the
insurance industry and of Flood Re. A survey carried out in my
constituency over the summer shows the proposals are supported by
many members of the public, too. In many ways, it is common sense
to pass this Bill. When it comes to supporting these measures
today, we should remember that the tide is rising, both literally
and metaphorically, and the time to act is now.
I thank Members on both sides of the House. Unfortunately I was
able to choose only 11 Members of Parliament to present the Bill,
but I have had a huge wealth of support from Members right across
the House, which shows the amount of concern about flooding and
flood prevention.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That , , , , , , , , , and present the Bill.
accordingly presented the
Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14
January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 191).
