The Social Justice Problem
In the past, floodplain land has been cheap and has often been used for social housing. This has meant that often the people who were flooded were low-income families who did not have the resources or influence to agitate for improved protection. The floods in 2000 marked a shift in the pattern, with many influential and famous people affected for the first time. If this trend continues, it will be interesting to see if this has an effect on the government.

For example, several of the flood victims in the April 2000 floods in Edinburgh were Queen's Counsel and other eminent citizens. After an 18-month feasibility study, it was announced that a consortium of insurers and loss adjusters was going to sue Edinburgh City Council for up to £70m for damage resulting from these floods. Is this a coincidence? (It is still not certain if this case will proceed.)

Insurance penetration has always been lower for low-income groups, and if insurance premiums rise in flood hazard areas, it could easily become lower still, yet these are the people who are most vulnerable to the impacts of flood. The housing benefit system should be adapted to include additional benefits to help such people pay for household contents insurance, perhaps under a "pay with rent" scheme. This would reduce pressure on the government to compensate flood victims who cannot afford insurance by providing a safety net for the most vulnerable members of society. The costs to government would certainly be much lower than the revenue it receives from insurance premium tax.

However the problem is not just with those on housing benefit. Everyone should have a right to a decent home, but for the good of society as a whole, this must particularly apply to people like nurses, teachers, train drivers and others on whom society is so dependent. It is not sustainable or acceptable for such people to have to commute long distances to work, or to live in overcrowded or sub standard accommodation.

In July 2002, the government announced a change in strategy, to promote "growth sub regions" in Milton Keynes , the South Midlands , and the London/Cambridge corridor, and other areas further north are likely to be selected too. This is to be welcomed if it relieves the pressure on planners in the Southeast to allow more building in the floodplains or in coastal areas. The question is whether these are the right strategic growth points, and whether flood and subsidence hazards have been taken into account in this policy?

Reinsurance brokers such as Benfield Group Limited and others have sophisticated modelling expertise which could be called on to advise government on such issues. So far the author is not aware of any dialogue with the insurance industry to make sure that these new developments will be in areas which are insurable.

«back to top«