Winter Flooding (Preparation)

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Maria Eagle

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dan Rogerson]

The Pitt review certainly recommended that we consider that, but the advice of the chief fire officer is that such a change would not be right at this point. The hon. Gentleman makes that point consistently in Parliament and with my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. We have heard today about the huge contribution made by the fire and rescue services. There was no shortage of resource and they were a big part of the recovery process, which is a good sign that current arrangements are proving successful. DCLG can continue to keep the matter under review, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will raise it with Ministers from that Department.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

I want to cover some of the other points made in the debate.

The Government are also reviewing the packages of support that have been put in place, with DCLG reviewing some recovery packages, but we are focused this morning on preventing flooding. In the short time remaining, I want to address the specific issues, frustrations and hopes for swift progress raised by other hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) sought assurances about the ditch clearance work that his communities believe would make a real difference. I am happy to get more information on that and to get back to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), along with a cross-party selection of Members from across the Humber area, consistently stresses the importance of future plans for that part of the country. As he uncannily predicted, that will be a matter for future major financial investment programme announcements, such as the autumn statement.

I am grateful for the contributions of all hon. Members. The Government are committed to investing record amounts in flood defences and to working with local communities to ensure that we spend that money more efficiently than ever to protect more and more homes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Maria Eagle

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

The Government of course recognise Kew’s obligations to care for the national collections under the National Heritage Act 1983. Against the backdrop of the deficit, the Department has continued to offer relative protection to Kew. Overall, the annual average of the Government’s funding of Kew over this spending review period is greater than that of the last. We continue to work with Kew as it puts in place plans to raise revenue and we continue to invest in the excellent work it does.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

DEFRA has just published “Making the most of our evidence”—I have a copy here—which makes the ludicrous claim that the Department is in favour of science-based policy making. I note that the foreword is by the Under-Secretary in the other place, Lord de Mauley, not by the Secretary of State, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has read it?

Flooding

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Maria Eagle

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I hope that if the Minister, whose parliamentary answer I am quoting from, has updated figures, he will provide them to the House when he replies to the debate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Maria Eagle

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her Committee for all the work they have done on flood defences—

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

You were a member of it!

[Dan Rogerson]

Yes, I suppose I should admit to that. Sadly, I am no longer a member.

The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) about a statement is obviously a matter for the Leader of the House to consider, perhaps later this morning. On her questions on maintenance, given this year’s extreme weather events, the Government have made available a £130 million investment to ensure that we repair and maintain the existing flood defences, which of course will allow us to invest in new schemes in the coming year.

[Maria Eagle]

As I saw for myself in Somerset earlier this week, the severe floods are causing unimaginable distress for many people as they see their homes wrecked, farmland submerged and businesses suffer. As all the evidence suggests, and as the Minister has just accepted, climate change will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent, so will he explain why his Department has been forced to admit, thanks to a freedom of information request, that total spending on climate change mitigation and adaptation has been cut by more than 40% since last year?

[Dan Rogerson]

I suspect that the hon. Lady is referring to the freedom of information request submitted on behalf of Lord Lawson. I can confirm that total Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs climate change spending on mitigation and adaptation was £34.8 million in 2011-12, £49.2 million in 2012-13 and £47.2 million in 2013-14, and we have resources yet to be allocated in the coming financial year.

[Maria Eagle]

The figures for the domestic spend were £24.7 million in 2011-12 and £29.1 million in 2012-13, but that has decreased this year to £17.2 million, which is a 40% cut. The decision to cut the climate change mitigation and adaptation budget by 40% was a serious error of judgment, one that the events of the past weeks must lead the Government to reconsider. The Minister will know that funding for flood protection remains £63.5 million below 2010 levels, even after the additional funding announced last week. Will he now agree to review the stringent cost-benefit ratio of eight to one applied by his Department to flood defence spending, which appears to have prevented so many vital schemes from going ahead?