The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: British Gas

  • PMQT – 15 December 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mrs. Roche: Given today’s news that British Gas retail staff, who earn an average of £13,000 a year, will be asked to take a pay cut while the chief executive will receive a pay rise of 75 per cent., does the Prime Minister share the opinion of the deputy chairman of the Conservative party that, under the present Government, the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest?

    The Prime Minister: I am a little surprised that the hon. Lady should mention that matter, in the light of what her hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor had to say on the radio a couple of hours ago.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hawkins: In the light of this week’s welcome further fall in unemployment, has my right hon. Friend met a single business man who supports the Labour party’s demand for a minimum wage, which would destroy so many jobs in constituencies such as mine in Blackpool?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot be sure that there is none who would, but certainly the overwhelming opinion is to the contrary. Even the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has in the past used the expression that there would be some jobs “shakeout”, or words to that effect. That means, of course, that people will lose their jobs. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has said that a minimum wage would have a potential jobs impact. He can hardly believe that it would be a favourable jobs impact. I think, therefore, that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench tend to agree that jobs would be lost by that policy.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, by next year, the chief executive of British Gas will earn in one week what his employees, who are now confronted with job cuts and pay cuts, earn in one year? Is it not time that he took a grip on those privatised utilities and put a stop to excesses that are offensive to the British sense of justice?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have to decide whether he wishes to have a private sector with rigid Government controls over every aspect of it, in which case it is not a private sector, or to renationalise industries such as gas, in which case he should make his position entirely clear. He might also clear his lines with his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) because my answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) applies also to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Blair: Since these industries are regulated, why could they not be regulated to put a stop to those excesses? Is not the point one of efficiency as well as justice because, if we want a modern motivated work force, we can have it only on the basis of investment, partnership and fairness, not on the old Tory notion of greed at the top and insecurity for the rest?

    The Prime Minister: A couple of hours ago the shadow Chancellor was asked:

    “Surely there is nothing you could do, could you, about wage rates within an industry? You are surely not going to start interfering with that again, are you?”

    To that, the hon. Gentleman said:

    “No, these are matters for negotiation between the unions and the employers.”

    They should sort their lines out themselves before they criticise us.

    Mr. Blair: The issue is not the market conditions of British Gas but the contrast between the treatment of the chief executive and those ordinary staff who are facing pay cuts. I understand that the Cabinet has its own committee looking into these matters. If the Prime Minister has such a committee, why will he not accept the suggestion put forward from the Opposition Benches that where there are excessive pay increases at the top the regulator should act to stop them?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the regulator. He is being wholly inconsistent. One day he complains about the British Gas monopoly, the next day he complains when British Gas faces competition and cuts its cloth accordingly. In one sense he opposes monopoly, in another sense he opposes competition. The reality is that he just opposes the private sector. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is what he and his colleagues have done so often–find a grievance, whatever it is, and use that grievance for partisan interest in the interests of the Labour party.

     

    Q3. Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

    Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that today is the anniversary of the Downing street declaration. I congratulate him on the progress that is being made in Northern Ireland towards a lasting peace and the announced inward investment and on the atmosphere that has improved so much in Northern Ireland, which he found in Portadown yesterday. Conservative Members believe that unless we get rid of the explosives and the firearms of the IRA, the UVF and the UFF, we will not be able to make the progress that we should.

    The Prime Minister: I share that view. Firearms, explosives and detonators, whether held by the IRA or by the loyalist paramilitaries, need to be decommissioned. As I said yesterday, I am not concerned whether they are surrendered; I am concerned that they are decommissioned and destroyed so that they can no longer be used to disrupt the democratic life of Northern Ireland. That is the important matter. That does have to be discussed and it does have to be acted upon during the preliminary discussions that are taking place at the moment. If progress is not made on that, not only, in my judgment, would the other democratic parties in Northern Ireland politics not sit down with those who retain those weapons, but nor should any British Government.

    Mr. Ashdown: Given the damage that has been done by indecision and division over Bosnia in the past, will the Prime Minister tell us what his response will be to the French proposal to be put to NATO on Monday to secure Sarajevo airport and to open a route to the sea in order to reinforce the UN’s humanitarian operations and to make more secure the position of our troops there in the future?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, we consider carefully anything that would secure the position of our troops and the right hon. Gentleman should know better than to suggest that we would do otherwise. I wish that he would not repeatedly undersell and undermine what is done there by British troops, United Nations troops and the Government. He has done nothing but grandstand on this issue from the commencement of the matter. If he really understood a little more about it, he might say a little less about it.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employees should be encouraged to take stakes in the companies that they work for? Does not he think it odd that the Labour party attacks share options, particularly bearing in mind the extent to which its leader and various of his “luvvie” friends seem to have benefited from them?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly think that it is right to extend share ownership as widely as possible. In the past 15 years, there has been a dramatic extension of share ownership. That has entrenched the private sector and private enterprise. It has done a great deal for the individual security of people owning shares. We shall certainly continue those policies. It would be welcome to have a cross-party consensus on it.

     

    Q4. Mr. McGrady: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. Will he join me in congratulating the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, and may I thank him personally for the great contribution and excellent launch of the Investment Forum drive in Belfast this week? He and, I hope, all hon. Members will pray that it bears immediate and urgent fruit. Having launched the Investment Forum, and having begun demilitarisation talks with the republican and loyalist paramilitaries, does he agree that the most urgent and pressing need in Northern Ireland is the recommencement of political dialogue, which must perforce await completion of the framework document? Will he assure the House today that, with the creation of the new Government in the Republic of Ireland under the new Taoiseach, John Bruton, the Government will act urgently to complete the framework document so that the two Governments and the political parties can negotiate a lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the IDB, officials in the Northern Ireland Office and the investment conference held yesterday. No one who attended the conference has any doubt that it was a tremendous success not only in the new investments that were announced yesterday, but in the number of new investments that may arise as a result of the conference. The atmosphere was quite astonishing, as everyone who attended will know.

    On the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s question, clearly it is desirable to recontinue the political dialogue as soon as possible. I have written already to the new Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, to say that I look forward to meeting him as soon as possible. I am confident that the new Irish Government will wish to sustain together the work that we have done over Northern Ireland. We wish to recommence discussions on the framework document and, I hope, conclude it as speedily as possible. But I would rather take a little longer over the document and get it right than deal with it too speedily and perhaps not have it right.

    Mr. Dunn: What advice will the Prime Minister offer to the people of Islington who are entitled to say that, if local education is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition, it is not good enough for them?

    The Prime Minister: I suspect that it is not only the Leader of the Opposition who has not found the education system satisfactory in Islington, although the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head so perhaps he does find it satisfactory after all. We need the highest quality of education in Islington not just for the right hon. Gentleman, of course, but for every Islington resident whose children attend schools there.

     

    Maltese Double Cross

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what is the outcome of the investigation, referred to in his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 29 November, of the scrutiny of the film “Maltese Double Cross” by those involved in the investigation; and who were those involved to whom he referred.

    The Prime Minister: The Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway police are still considering the contents of the film.

    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a matter of record that on 19 September 1989 the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson–in good faith, quite certainly–offered the British relatives of the victims of Lockerbie a public inquiry on the condition that it was agreed by his colleagues? Which colleague vetoed that, and why did she do it?

    The Prime Minister: My understanding of what I believe the hon. Gentleman has in mind is a little different from that implied by him. I am advised that in 1990 Lord Parkinson undertook to consider with colleagues the case for a confidential inquiry. When, subsequently, a decision was taken to hold the fatal accident inquiry, the case for a second inquiry fell away. I am advised that that was explained and accepted at the time by the relatives.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Michie: Is the Prime Minister aware that the London to Crianlarich and Fort William and other sleeper trains are to be axed? That is no scare story. It signals the death knell of many vital rural services in Scotland and is due entirely to the Prime Minister’s chaotic and damaging privatisation scheme.

    The Prime Minister: Unless the hon. Lady is talking about a different service, I understand that sleeper services from London to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness will be safeguarded for the first time. If she has other detailed questions about other services, I suggest that she addresses them to the Secretaries of State for Transport or for Scotland.

  • PMQT – 5 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Lidington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Lidington : In marking this month the 50th anniversary of R. A. Butler’s Education Act, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ensuring that every child in this country receives a rigorous, demanding and high-quality education? Will he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to enlarging choice and opportunity for parents and pupils alike?

    The Prime Minister : That Act was certainly a very revolutionary Act of Parliament, and one which has made a great difference to our education system over the years. At that time, eight out of 10 children left school at age 14. Thankfully, today almost one in three children go on to higher education. What we need to do–I hope that this is a view shared by the whole House–is build on that achievement by giving parents more choice, raising standards in schools and creating opportunities for every child to make the most of his or her abilities.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell us why changes in gas pricing are being planned which will put substantial increases on the gas bills of 12 million ordinary people–the very same people who will have to pay 8 per cent. VAT this year and 17.5 per cent. next year? Does not he think that they are paying enough already?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait and find out what really happens. I have seen myself the newspaper reports on which he is no doubt basing his remarks. I understand that the gas regulator believes that there is no evidence to back up those claims and that the director of the Gas Consumers Council has said that British Gas was scaremongering.

    Mr. John Smith : If the Prime Minister is so confident about that, can he specifically deny that pensioners on a basic rate pension will face a 21 per cent. increase in their gas bills? Can he give them that guarantee today?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : We want a guarantee.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will wait. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again taking a story and attempting to erect a scare to frighten vulnerable people. He knows very well that the Department of Trade and Industry and the gas regulator will be issuing a consultative document shortly.

    I suggest that, before he peddles more scares, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have the grace to wait for that document. I also remind the House that British Gas tariff prices were reduced from July 1992, reduced further from October 1992 and have fallen by more than 4 per cent. in cash terms and 6.5 per cent. in real terms in the past year.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the Gas Consumers Council has not only complained ; it has pointed out that the consultative document was agreed last month but is being delayed because of today’s elections? Does not the Prime Minister understand that delaying bad news until after elections is the sort of behaviour that is bringing the Conservative party into the disrepute for which it will suffer at the polls today?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is earning himself a deserved reputation for smears that will do him and his party no good. What is proposed in due course is a consultative document that will be published shortly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait until he reads that consultative document; he would be wise not to misrepresent it and he would be wise to remind everybody how real prices in gas have fallen as a result of measures taken in the past.

    Mr. Wilshire : Does my right hon. Friend share my contempt for those who seek to make £1 million from the sale of secretly taken photographs, irrespective of whether the victim is a member of the royal family or an individual private citizen? What steps can the Government take to stop people in Britain profiting from such despicable behaviour?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will speak for millions of people in this country in the remarks that he has made. I will reflect on the second half of his question.

     

    Q2. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister accept the view of senior defence chiefs that, as a result of cuts in the defence budget, Britain could no longer mount an operation even on the scale of our part in the Gulf war? Is not it a grotesque betrayal of this country that his party, which has so long and so wrongly accused the Labour party of stripping Britain of its defences, has now done just that?

    The Prime Minister : For years, the hon. and learned Gentleman’s party and Front-Bench spokesmen have sought to strip Britain of its nuclear weapons, dismantle a large part of its armed forces and cut down substantial expenditure on the armed forces. The one party in Parliament that consistently ensures this country’s capacity to defend itself is this party–and this Government. That has been the case in the past, it is the case now and it will remain the case in future, however much the hon. and learned Gentleman tries to distort reality.

    Mr. Ashby : Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a solution to the sale of photographs of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales for £1 million : we could swiftly introduce a privacy Bill and ensure that there is no public interest defence available in that Bill?

    The Prime Minister : I note carefully my hon. Friend’s suggestion.

     

    Q3. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Heppell : In view of the latest Home Office estimates suggesting that it will cost £475 million to issue identity cards in Britain, with ongoing costs of £50 million to £100 million each year, is the Prime Minister now prepared to abandon his scheme and put some of that money into my constituency, which is sixteenth in the whole of Great Britain in terms of unemployment? Would not the money be better spent on the regeneration of the city of Nottingham?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that unemployment has fallen 27 per cent. in his constituency.

    Mr. Heppell : No.

    The Prime Minister : I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. It has fallen in his constituency, but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who may not mention unemployment, it has dropped 27 per cent. On the question raised by the hon. Gentleman, I made it clear the other day that we are examining the question of identity cards, and I think that if the hon. Gentleman were to go to his constituency and ask his constituents, he would find a very high level of support for the principle of identity cards provided that we are able to overcome the practical difficulties in introducing them.

    Mr. Hendry : Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to look at this week’s figures which show a dramatic reduction in the number of home repossessions and which come on top of figures showing that the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has fallen by two thirds in the past two years, and that the number of people sleeping rough on the streets of London is also down by two thirds ? Does not that show that the Government’s policies to tackle homelessness are clearly working?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, the figures are certainly very encouraging. There is no doubt that the number of repossessions has been falling for some time, and fortunately shows signs of continuing to fall. Moreover, the housing market seems to be picking up, and new construction orders are on the increase.

    This is all part of the much brighter economic picture that is becoming clearer as day succeeds day.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hanson : I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has the right answer this time.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to its chief executive, the Child Support Agency is now collecting less than the DSS did last year? Is he further aware that, on top of the fact that the CSA is chasing millions of the wrong people and causing misery to many more, and the fact that it has cost £146 million to set up, it is time for a review of the agency so that it can start to chase the right people who are paying nothing at all?

    The Prime Minister : If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he might care to check his figures before asking any future questions. The agency is bringing in a significant new system from scratch. That system has broad support right across the House and beyond it. It is in its first year–the first of a series of years in which the strategy will be examined. I do not think that it can be compared simplistically with past figures. We are seeking to bring in a new system that is right in principle. I have made it clear before, and I reiterate now, that, if there are any wrinkles, we will keep them under examination and correct them.

    Mr. King : Is my right hon. Friend aware–further to his answer to a question about whether we could fight the Gulf war now on our present defence programme–that if we followed the policy of the Labour party, which proposes a £6 billion cut in our defences, it would be impossible to provide our forces with the equipment that they need? With the new order for Challenger tanks, with the Warrior, and with the European fighter aircraft, the answer to the question about the Gulf war is surely a definite yes : we would be well equipped for any such future campaign.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend speaks with the authority of a former Secretary of State for Defence, and I entirely agree with what he had to say. A great many extra resources have been put into providing the best, most modern equipment for our armed forces.

    Mr. Tony Banks : No, they have not.

    The Prime Minister : A great deal of expenditure has been put into providing the best equipment for the armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman does not think so, perhaps he will go and ask Vickers and some other companies what they think they are producing.

     

    Q5. Mr. Eastham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Eastham : In 1988, the Government decided that they would allow pensioners claiming rebates to have £3,000 in savings. Since then, the figure has never been index-linked, and in relative values it would now be worth £3,960. When will the Government review it?

    The Prime Minister : The figure is reviewed from time to time. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it has not been changed since 1981. It is reviewed on each occasion on which we look at the uprating of pensions and other social security benefits.

    Mr. Sykes : I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the grim tragedy that overwhelmed my constituency in the early hours of this morning, when a 33-year-old mother and her baby were killed in a fire at a DSS hostel in Scarborough. In March, the Government announced that they would consider a licensing scheme for such hostels. In view of this distressing incident, will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State to proceed with that scheme as a matter of urgency?

    The Prime Minister : I was very concerned to hear about the tragic loss of life and the appalling injuries in the fire. We are, as my hon. Friend intimates, investigating the feasibility of introducing a licensing system to control such establishments. There are of course wide-ranging powers for local authorities to enforce fire safety standards in such hostels, and a full inquiry by the fire brigade into the cause of the blaze has already begun. I will of course look carefully at my hon. Friend’s request.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Prentice : Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are failing to collect the £240 million a year in national insurance contributions due from employers, as outlined in today’s Financial Times? Is not this another example of the waste and inefficiency of the Government that the right hon. Gentleman leads? Why does not he do something to ensure that that money is collected, instead of slapping massive tax increases on ordinary families?

    The Prime Minister : The Inland Revenue certainly tries to collect all the tax that is available. That has always been the case. If tax is due, everything is done to ensure that it is paid. I hope that the hon. Lady will address her strictures also to the large number of Labour authorities that do not collect rents or council taxes and have run up quite shocking debts–not on one or two isolated occasions, but on a very large number of occasions.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Like Westminster.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman who has shouted “Like Westminster” wants to know which local authorities have rent arrears, I shall tell him : Hackney, run by Labour; Southwark, run by Labour. One could extend the list. Seven out of the top 10 authorities on it are run by Labour. They do not collect rents or council taxes and are just plain inefficient.