Flooding

Debate between Peter Luff and Lord Pickles

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

It is certainly not those on the Government Benches who are seeking to make political capital from this or engage in some kind of blame game. I am not entirely sure what we got out of this afternoon, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are a lot of people working extremely hard right now to keep him and his constituents warm and dry.

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

When it comes to advice on flooding from the Environment Agency, is not the real problem that it has too often been ignored by local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, leading to inappropriate development that makes flooding worse?

[Mr Pickles]

I know that my hon. Friend has had some particular problems. I looked carefully at the figures for building where there was an acute risk of flooding, and I am delighted to tell him that the number of buildings in high-risk areas is at an all-time low. I am also pleased to say that where there have been objections from, say, the Environment Agency, they have been adhered to on 99.3% of occasions.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Peter Luff and Lord Pickles

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I think that the Secretary of State will recognise that the level of attendance in the House today for the consideration of Lords amendments shows how seriously many of us take the matter. To return to his earlier metaphor, he is a good egg and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. He must not scramble the process, however, and I hope that he will return with substantive changes. Tinkering is not enough; we believe that the policy is seriously flawed.

[Mr Pickles]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not coddling me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Luff and Lord Pickles

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I am delighted to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the reduction in spending power is not 1.7% but 1.3%. That represents good news. Figures tend to move about—[Laughter.] That is why we have a provisional settlement. I do not know why Opposition Members are laughing; I respectfully remind them that in several settlements things changed dramatically and that one year Labour was forced to go out to consultation again.

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the £1.3 million new homes bonus paid to Worcestershire is being funded by a £3.5 million reduction in its baseline funding and that Wychavon district council’s new homes bonus of £1.2 million over the past three years has been matched by a £2.2 million reduction in its baseline funding? Does he understand the inexorable logic of the position that including the new homes bonus in spending power perverts the purpose of the new homes bonus, which is to incentivise communities to accept new development?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend must accept that we took more into consideration than the grant going in and that we have moved on to spending power, which is what the Local Government Association and the Labour Opposition wanted to see. The local government spend is £114 billion. That is twice the size of the defence budget and more than we spend on the national health service. Even his own authority must play a part in reducing public spending to deal with the deficit we were left by the Opposition. The new homes bonus gives the authority an opportunity to make money.