Mr. Michael Kemp:

That is essentially what all the measures we are suggesting are addressed to. They are meant to try to alleviate the issue. It is very difficult to be specific about individual cases as every situation is different; there is different topography and risk from place to place. In some cases, measures can be taken at the level of individual premises that would help to protect against flooding but in other cases, there is a question of physical defences, water courses and greater protection upstream. We must also be aware that in some cases a problem is prevented by taking action in one area but it may create a difficulty somewhere else. That must be taken into account.

The idea and thrust of our argument is that if we can take effective measures, which will include participation in design from the insurance industry, and have an agreed standard of the built defences, there will greater availability of cover in areas that were previously a problem. The claims cost associated with flooding, subject to frequency and climate change issues, will go down, all other things being equal, and therefore the insurance cost will go down.

As we noted in the presentation, excesses in premiums are implemented before getting to the ultimate stage of having to withdraw cover because of the prognosis for a recurrence of damage. All those tools are used on a daily basis to try to address problems as they arise.