That may strike some people as odd, but it is the normal Commons procedure.
There will be a further meeting tonight hosted by Bedford borough council. I record my thanks for the leadership shown by Laura Church, the chief executive of the council, and my thanks to Craig Austin and the other staff of the council for their considerable efforts on behalf of residents. The meetings are helpful in addressing immediate concerns, but I will raise some other issues.
First, there is the return of residents to their homes. As might be anticipated, there are differences between residents regarding their confidence in returning to their homes. Many are eager to do so, but many residents have considerable anxiety about a return, with concerns for their safety and that of their children or loved ones. I have spoken to residents, and a major assistance in building that confidence would be an accountable, authoritative voice to underwrite the assertion that it is safe to return. However, it seems that none of the agencies have the combination of expertise and authority to make such a call. In the absence of that, the default may be that the risks of returning will be transferred from a responsible body to each resident, with potential implications for future insurance and other liabilities, which clearly should not happen. What steps can the Minister take to end this Mexican stand-off regarding advice on a safe return for residents to their property? Will she urgently investigate in what form a responsible agency or authority could provide the underwritten reassurance that it is safe for residents to return?
Over this period, Bedford borough council has incurred considerable additional costs and diverted many officers and staff to manage the needs of residents. The exceptional demands for expenditure and human resources came shortly after one of the most significant incidences of flooding in the area; in fact, the Met Office reported that Bedfordshire had its wettest September since records began in 1836. Much of that rain came in the very last part of the month and caused significant flooding. As the Minister is well aware, there is a scheme—the Bellwin scheme—that can be used to support local authorities with covering those exceptional costs. I know that the Department has been in discussions with Bedford borough council and is waiting to hear whether a formal application will be made. I also understand that Ministers are empowered by section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to decide whether to activate a scheme after considering the circumstances of each individual case. There is discretion here. Should the council make a formal application, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to use the powers granted to her under section 155 to approve the application by Bedford borough council?
The incident at Cleat Hill should also stimulate a review of regulations to see whether they are sufficient or should be updated. It may surprise hon. Members, as it did my constituents, that it is permissible to drill a hole 100 metres deep in a back garden without any permit or notification required. Such boreholes are considered permitted development. Will the Minister review whether the drilling of a 100-metre hole in a residential area should continue to be classified as permitted development, or whether there should be a permitting or notification requirement?
The Cleat Hill incident also raises some questions about the regulation of the installation of heat pumps more generally. More than 30,000 ground source heat pumps have been installed in the United Kingdom, and this is the first known incident in which a gas reservoir has been tapped during the drilling for a ground source heat pump. However, the UK currently plans to roll out many more heat pumps—a large proportion of which will be ground source heat pumps—in its effort to achieve net zero.
We must remember that boreholes are drilled for a variety of reasons, not just for heat pumps, and that the incident at Cleat Hill was about the drilling of boreholes, not the heat pump specifically. However, the Ground Source Heat Pump Association, which is not party to the investigation, wrote to me to say:
“While this is the first incident of its kind in the UK, and is extremely unlikely to be repeated, we do not feel it would be appropriate to simply wait until the formal investigation has concluded.”
It went on to say:
“On that basis, the GSHPA has communicated with all its members advising them to procure gas monitoring equipment, if they do not already possess it. As a precautionary measure, we have instructed members to go above and beyond present regulations and guidance and to follow the procedures given in the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations which apply to Coal Authority Areas when drilling boreholes for ground source heat pump ground loops at all sites.”
In light of this, will the Minister ask the relevant Department to review the geographic scope of the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995 and decide whether they should be extended to cover a broader part of the United Kingdom? More generally, will she ask the relevant Minister to engage with the Ground Source Heat Pump Association to review and, where necessary, update the regulations and official guidance on the installation of ground source heat pumps?
As you might imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, my residents who have been out of their homes for five weeks have some practical questions about insurance and the impact on house values. I would like to put those on the record, although I appreciate that there is limited scope for consideration of official support by the Minister. The first question is about the variation between insurers regarding the number of days that a policy holder can be absent from their home. For some insurers, that number is 30 days; for others, it is 60 days. I wrote to the Association of British Insurers, which advised me that although those provisions remain in place,
“insurers will take a case by case approach and look to respond sympathetically where customers are likely to remain out of their homes beyond the limits provided for in the policy due to the evacuation.”
The second question is about the impact that the discovery of this shallow gas reservoir and the explosion may have on my residents’ future ability to obtain home insurance, and on the premiums attached to such policies. Again, I put those questions to the Association of British Insurers, and I am grateful for its response. The ABI cannot comment on individual pricing or commercial decisions by its members, but added:
“That said, we have raised the concern with our members, and we are not currently aware of any general issues relating to Cleat Hill that would change the general underwriting approach applied to the area. It will be a commercial decision for individual insurers and a range of criteria unrelated to the incident may impact on an individual household’s future risk. These will continue to be assessed by insurers on a commercial and competitive basis.”
On house values, I am grateful for the response to my question from the Minister’s colleague, which states:
“On your question about the effect on property values, it is possible that there could be some diminution of property values, however our expectation is that property values will return relatively quickly to comparable local levels.”
I am grateful to be able to put those points from the ABI and the Minister’s colleague on the record.
I will close by commenting on the importance of gaining a comprehensive understanding. In July, my residents were alerted to the release of gas, but were content to return to their homes because they believed the situation was under control. Now they face a return to their homes in very different circumstances, with many more questions, much greater anxiety and much less trust in taking people at their word. Currently, the size and scope of the gas reservoir at Cleat Hill is not known. An assessment is being made of the costs of a project to provide this information, but it is likely to be beyond the budget of the local authority.
The central issue remains the lack of a comprehensive understanding of the status of the gas reservoir. How significant is it? What is its geographical scope? Did the period of venting create fissures in the layer of rock that had kept the gas from seeping into the soil? Did the 109-day period of venting release such a proportion of gas as to make the rock layer susceptible to collapse from the downward pressure of the 100 metres of soil above? These are all very important questions to be answered.
There is an emerging plan for the gas monitors and alarms to be available to local residents and connected to a 24/7 response centre. This longer-term monitoring plan is designed to provide an early alert to residents should there be any future change in detected methane levels. However, can the Minister advise us of which agency would be responsible for the ongoing monitoring if such a long-term plan were put in place? Can she assure me that the Department will be able to seek expert advice, so that the correct plan is put in place for both the regularity and duration of testing, including of the stability of the closed borehole and of the rock layer containing the gas reservoir?
To remind the Minister, the incidence of breaking a seal on a shallow gas reservoir is historically extremely rare. It is not exactly comparable, but the drilling in 2007 of boreholes for geothermal energy in Staufen in Germany created significant problems a decade later. In that case, water was released, not gas, but I believe the incident reinforces the need to gather a comprehensive understanding of the situation at Cleat Hill. So will the Minister instruct officials in her Department to liaise with Bedford borough council to assess the proposals to conduct a full survey of the scale and scope of the gas reservoir at Cleat Hill, and see whether the cost of that survey can be borne centrally?