My Lords, I do not know whether I can rattle through this in quite such short a time as six minutes but I will do my best. I start by expressing appreciation to the many professionals and industry bodies who have been extremely open and frank with me about their views and insights. I am also very grateful to the Minister and his department for the correspondence and guidance that they have generated.
My starting point is that Flood Re is necessary and desirable, and I hope that nothing I say will be interpreted as damaging that. The objective of Amendment 89 is to enshrine fairness in the primary legislation by requiring that the subsequent regulations brought forward by the Secretary of State will ensure that all properties included in the calculation of the levy are eligible for the scheme. I will come back to that later. The objective of Amendment 90 is to ensure proportionality in the primary legislation by requiring that the regulations limit the possibility of unfair loading against any particular council tax band.
First, I shall set these amendments in the context of the wider issues. In Committee, I expressed grave concerns about the Government’s unwitting exposure of risks in the mortgage lending industry, a sector which, I pointed out, is influenced both by the availability
at reasonable cost of perils insurance, including for flooding, and by its own independent assessment of risk. It is dangerous to assume that the potential for value write-downs is simple scaremongering or that lenders will necessarily just fall behind insurers’ lead. The situation is made worse by the express intention to move to individual risk assessment with insufficiently accurate, readily available or acceptably cheap data, either now or proposed, on which such individual risk could reasonably be assessed. It is clear from what the British Property Federation tells me that there is an issue here, and I feel that the Government could do more about it.
Either one has a risk pool and you do not ask too many detailed questions or there is an individual risk assessment with 1,000 variations. In the latter case, we can of course wait to see what happens to the at-risk properties that lie outside Flood Re. I am told that they can expect a significant hike in insurance premiums and I believe that we have started to see that happen. Of course, we do not know what the “at real risk” numbers are because Defra has not carried out an audit. The Environment Agency has different figures depending on whether coastal storm surge, fluvial, surface run-off, sewer surcharge or groundwater rise is involved, as well as indirect vulnerabilities such as property damage following disruption to services and access. Defra seems to select what suits its purposes, and in a sense I do not blame it for that. However, I am fairly unhappy about the whole of this part of the Bill, in particular, its evidence base and its unintended consequences, particularly when confidence in Flood Re is so vital, as I think it is.
I turn to some of the detail behind the amendments. The statement of principles said that it would ensure that home owners and small businesses would be protected. That was the public expectation. The Government claim that Flood Re is designed to cover the same categories of policyholder, but that is not how it appears. Leaving small and medium-sized enterprises apart, the Government need to explain and justify the exclusion of many homes and their rather convoluted way of defining them. It is that which I wish to address in particular.
The Defra note last week on the scope of Flood Re is evidence of the difficulties. The criteria are listed on page 2. Of the five criteria listed, three simply pose additional questions. As regards whether properties are insured in the name of an individual or in trust for an individual, how would one know? Whether properties are used for residential purposes may be a hotly debated matter given the number of people who work from home. The test of occupancy by the policyholder or immediate family also worries me. Under policies that are in scope, we note that contents insurance in the main is included but that stands in stark contrast to the insurance of the building fabric, which is on a different template. A lot of people with composite policies, especially some first-time buyers, might struggle to know the difference between the two. Buildings insurance policies in scope are covered on page 3 and it seems to me that things get into further complexity. The categorisation of owner-occupied homes provokes a raft of subsidiary questions. Who is insured? Who
occupies? What are the family connections? For owner-occupied leaseholds you have to know whether the leaseholder is in actual occupation and what the insurance covenants state. These could be in a superior leasehold document or have just come about by subsequent lease variation or custom. The policy must cover three flats or fewer and the freeholder—in particular not being a head lessee I would ask your Lordships to note—must live in one of them. We have questions of numbers of units covered in the policy not being the same as the number of homes in the building and questions of how one might determine that. There is also the identity of persons, their relationships and the actual place of abode. Quite why the classification of homeowner hinges on the residence of the freeholder escapes me. I do not think that it will be seen as a fair test for this purpose. Once the presence of leasehold is established, the criteria create all sorts of further additional interests, but I will leave the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Whitty, to expand on that.
When a top-floor maisonette gets split and combined with the roof space as an extra unit to make four, what then? Why should that change the status of all the others? Are leaseholders who share the freehold via a company formed for the purpose to be included? If so, how would one distinguish that from a next-door investment property? I do not accept the justification for the blanket exclusion of mixed residential and commercial blocks, in which I also include the one, two or three self-contained flats above the shop. I also feel that including these is not in any way insurmountable.
I turn now to the exclusion of council tax band H and I properties. I note that the Association of British Insurers’ briefing says that this was a ministerial decision. I simply point out that many people occupy modest London homes in band H while near-identical properties in the regions may be in much lower bands. The disparity has arisen because of the economic imbalance that has grown up over time. But, as the brokers Hiscox put to me, what conceivable difference would it make to the actuarial calculations of Flood Re to include them, especially if the maximum claim that could be made for higher-value properties was capped at some figure? What effects are anticipated from excluding large numbers of inner London homes? Further, since when has the registered address of a business been anything whatever to do with the place where the business is conducted or, for that matter, with the predominant use of the dwelling where it may happen to be registered?
I turn to the exclusion of properties built after 1 January 2009 which none the less, as with the other exclusions, form a component in the levy. In Committee, we debated Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. That was published in March 2010. I am not clear why the earlier retroactive date was chosen, but I suggest that the process was less than open and transparent. Purchasers of homes in that category would have been unaware that they might have been excluded and will consider themselves, I suspect, unfairly penalised. Based on 2% of the estimate of completions since the end of 2008, there are probably about 30,000 of these properties as a rough estimate, 2% of which are at significant risk. But they should
also be at particularly low risk in actuarial terms if local planning authorities, developers and planning inspectors have adhered to the principles of PPS 25. It would be much more appropriate to set a cut-off date of, say, Royal Assent.
4 pm
The reason that a reinsurance pool has credibility and cohesion is that those at little risk have the sense of needing protection in case a peril might none the less befall them, but the likely consumer reaction to being statutorily excluded and denied any benefit from the scheme and yet obliged to contribute vicariously to it ought to be a matter for sober reflection.
Defra takes four pages to explain the latest government position on all this, but it is overcomplicated and I do not believe that it will work. Many industry players have also expressed their doubts to me about its deliverability. Furthermore, it needlessly reduces the insurance pool for no ostensible advantage. I am sure noble Lords will all know that the principle is, within reason, the larger the pool the better the stability of the scheme. The test that was suggested to me by Hiscox is that if it is a domestic property in a council tax band and built before a specified date, it should be within the Flood Re scheme. If it is not; it is out. Mixed uses can be apportioned. There is no fuss and no bother. It is easy to verify. It is a radical simplification of the entire process.
I do not believe that there would be any adverse affect on the flood risk pool profile. It would be as fair as it gets. The Government need to think further and actively engage a wider range of professional and financial views. That is all I ask. I beg to move.