| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Water Bills
12. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the use of a pre-payment card system for the payment of water bills. [25684]
Mr. Robert B. Jones: My Department has recently received representations on the use of budget payment units, which use a pre-payment card system, from the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and from one charitable organisation. I am confident that the units have helped to reduce problems of water debt, as have the trusts that a number of water companies have set up to help customers who cannot pay.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that budget payment units are extremely popular with the 16,000 customers who voluntarily opted to have them installed? Is not it ironic that certain local authorities, mainly Labour, have sought to challenge the legality of the provision by water companies of budget payment units?
Mr. Jones: I agree that it is extraordinary. Not only have the units been helpful but MORI surveys have shown that 90 per cent. of customers are satisfied.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister make a distinction between budget pre-payment units that make payment easy and timing devices that shut off the water supply when the money runs out, thus leaving the household without a supply? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that representations have been made against the latter devices by the National Consumer Council, local authorities, the National Federation of Housing Associations and environmental health officers because
those devices pose a risk to public health? Will the Minister at least ensure that the number of people whose water supplies are cut off by such devices is published alongside disconnection figures, which are generally published?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Lady ought to acknowledge that both methods are popular and voluntary. I am sorry that there is a split in the Labour party on the subject. Clive Wilkinson, the former Labour leader of Birmingham city council, said:
- "The overwhelming view of customers in my area who have had them installed is that these units are a good thing. I have not received a single complaint about the units from customers. I do not want to see customers being denied the choice if they want to opt for one of these units."
Chemical Waste Recycling (Worcester)
13. Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposal from NORCHEM to establish a chemical waste recycling facility at Warndon, Worcester. [25685]
Mr. Clappison: My Department has received 125 representations on that subject.
Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that that number of representations shows the depth of anger in my constituency at an unwelcome and totally inappropriate proposal, which has already led to the deselection of the local Labour county councillor who argued for NORCHEM and against the interests of my constituents? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that the Environment Agency refuses a licence, and re-examine the city and county council planning procedures that led to this unfortunate situation?
Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is correct when he says that there is clearly huge interest in this serious subject among the people of Worcester. My hon. Friend will be aware of the restrictions on me and on the Department in respect of planning cases and the actions of local authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that I will take a particular interest in the matter.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Environment Agency's powers over waste management, and over licensing in particular. The system is highly acclaimed and those powers will be available in this case, if necessary.
Water Industry
14. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the regulation of the water industry. [25686]
Mr. Gummer: The regulatory system for the water industry in England and Wales ensures that the companies can finance their investment programmes while protecting the interests of customers and the environment.
Mr. Dalyell: If Britain has a dryish May, June and July, who will pay for the emergency measures in August and September? Will it be the water companies, consumers or Government?
Mr. Gummer: Happily, the likelihood is that, even if this year is as difficult as last year, no one in England will
be subject to rota cuts or standpipes. If that is so, the privatised water companies will have achieved something that was never achieved by the nationalised companies at any time in the history of similar water situations. It is for the water companies to make provision.
Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem being encountered by Batley city challenge, in being prevented by Yorkshire Water from using water for stone-cleaning activities? What advice can my right hon. Friend give that city challenge?
Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to say that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), has agreed to look into that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) will know that Yorkshire Water has made major changes and considerable investment, to ensure that the water problems of last year are overcome.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Standard Spending Assessments
15. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of recent representations he has received on standard spending assessments. [25687]
Mr. Curry: We consider all representations received on SSAs. Proposals for change are examined with the local authority associations in the standard spending assessment sub-group of the settlement working group.
Mr. Jones: Why did the Government show favouritism to Westminster council?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the system of local government finance. We direct the funds where the needs are greatest, which is why in London the single biggest recipient of Government support is Tower Hamlets, followed by councils such as Southwark, Lambeth and Islington. If we did not do that, that would indeed be wrong. The idea that there should be a pro rata rate across the country is both fundamentally wrong and extremely silly.
PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25701]
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Prime Minister had drawn to his attention the article that appeared in the British Medical Journal last week, which stated that the
Committee on Safety of Medicines recommended the prohibition, for pharmaceutical purposes, of all beef products from potentially bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected herds as far back as 1989? In view of that information, will he tell me why the Department of Health did not make similar recommendations about beef consumption at that time?
The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will weigh very carefully what he has to say in these matters. That is most emphatically not what his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) did some time ago. We take and make public the advice that is appropriate in terms of safety in this country. That is our responsibility and that is what we do.
Q2. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25702]
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his cohorts on the Opposition Benches fall over themselves to try to get the votes of the gin and Jag brigade--the middle classes--but is the Prime Minister aware that it is the Conservative party that speaks for those in my constituency, in Cleethorpes and Immingham, who are still proud to call themselves working class? Is it not a fact that those people look to the Conservative party and the Conservative Government to ensure that they have the chance to buy their council house, to escape from trade union rule, from the closed shop, and to ensure that child benefit is protected for their children, who want better and further education? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: The latest recruit to the middle classes, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is heckling from a sedentary position. I hope that his arrival among the middle classes did not cause them too much distress. The policies that he advocates certainly would: higher taxes on people--[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East says it on his aircraft. The shadow Transport Minister says it publicly and then does not subsequently deny it. There would be an extra tax, of course, on parents who have children at school between 16 and 18--a special tartan tax if someone happens to be a Scot. Those people can have that sort of tax as well. If someone happens to be a Londoner, they can have a top-up tax. Tax after tax. The Opposition know that that is their position. We are cutting taxes now. The Opposition plan to increase them.
Mr. Blair: I think that what most people remember is the 22 tax rises since 1992, and VAT going on--from the Prime Minister who said that it would not.
Is it correct, as has been reported today, that recorded crime in January and February of this year was substantially above recorded crime for the same period last year?
The Prime Minister:
The minute that was leaked, which has caused some correspondence between the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my right hon. and
Mr. Blair:
I hope that the Prime Minister will publish the full figures. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. The House must come to order--all of it. That includes the Front Bench below the Gangway.
Mr. Blair:
The same memorandum says that recorded crime has now risen for six consecutive months. Is that correct? Is it also correct that the trend in crime is upwards, as the memorandum additionally says? If those two points are correct, will the Prime Minister accept that, since the Conservatives came to power, crime has actually more than doubled?
The Prime Minister:
As I said a moment ago, we will publish the detailed figures at the usual time in the usual way; but, as it happens, parts of the figures in the memorandum that was leaked were wrong. Although monthly figures are always volatile, there is no doubt that crime fell in the last two months of 1995, so it cannot have just risen for the past six months, as the right hon. Gentleman said it did.
If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about reducing crime, perhaps he can explain to us why he and his party vote against every measure that we introduce to be tough on crime. Why do they always make excuses for the criminal, and ignore the pleas of the victims?
Mr. Blair:
This party was advancing constructive proposals for law and order while the right hon. Gentleman's Ministers were still boasting about the numbers coming out of prison.
If the Prime Minister says that parts of the memorandum are wrong, perhaps he will now tell us which parts are right. Perhaps, instead of talking nonsense about Labour policy, he will admit the truth about his own--that people are less safe in their own homes, less secure in their jobs and less confident of their future, and that it is precisely because of that weakness, failure and incompetence that people will be so justified in punishing his party on Thursday.
The Prime Minister:
That comment was a long time coming, and it was not really worth waiting for. We will publish the figures in the usual fashion at the usual time.
As for being constructive on proposals, I am surprised that the leader of the Labour party thinks that he is constructive on crime. We reformed the right of silence; he opposed it. Was that constructive? We gave the Attorney-General the right to appeal against soft sentences; the right hon. Gentleman opposed it. Was that constructive? We increased the penalty for cruelty to children; Labour opposed it. Was that constructive?
On issue after issue after issue, the Labour party shows that it is soft on crime. It is not prepared to take the measures that will attack the criminal and protect the
citizen, and, however the right hon. Gentleman tries to make partisan points, that is what the public know about his policy.
Q3. Sir Graham Bright:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25703]
The Prime Minister:
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Sir Graham Bright:
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that child benefit for children who stay at school for a further two years to study for A-levels is worth in excess of £1,000? Can he also confirm that child benefit has its origins in tax rebate? If that were abolished, as Labour proposes, it would be equivalent to putting 5p on the basic rate of tax for the average parent. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister:
I note that Labour Members laugh at the thought of 5p on tax for people on average incomes. So much for their claim that they would not increase taxes. Child benefit was a tax allowance benefit; it was made into a cash payment for mothers to ensure that it was used on behalf of their children. Now Labour proposes to provide a disincentive to stop children from staying on at school.
Mr. Faulds:
Don't be so childish. You are Prime Minister, for God's sake.
Madam Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his cool.
The Prime Minister:
If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) studied his party's policy on this issue, he would be right to be angry at the way in which it proposes to treat people up and down the country.
Mr. Ashdown:
The Prime Minister is, I believe, an honourable man. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. Will he therefore confirm that he understands that, if once again Conservative Members of Parliament try to change the Prime Minister, while denying the country the chance to change the Government, it will be totally unacceptable to all the British people? Will he therefore confirm that if, after Thursday, they try to get rid of him, he will ensure that we have a chance to get rid of the Government?
The Prime Minister:
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing in fantasy again.
Q4. Mr. John Marshall:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25704]
The Prime Minister:
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Marshall:
Will my right hon. Friend welcome the article in today's Evening Standard about tube and bus fares in London? Is that not good news for Londoners, who can look forward to the extension of the Jubilee line, improvements to the Northern line, Thameslink 2000, the Heathrow to Paddington link, improvements to the
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend, who has been lobbying on many of those matters for many years, has clearly studied the transport document with great care. He is of course right. It is good news for passengers in London, and so of course is the policy of capping fares. We expect London transport fares to rise at a significantly lower level than in the past as part of a strategy of making public transport more attractive.
Q5. Mr. Mike O'Brien:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.[25705]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. O'Brien:
With reference to the previous question, which the Prime Minister did not really answer, will he say whether he has ever discussed an understanding whereby, if the Conservatives do not do well in the local government elections this week, he will make way for the Deputy Prime Minister? We need a reassurance on that, as the Prime Minister must understand. Will he take it from me that he has the support of much of the House to remain leader of the Conservative party up to a general election? He has the support of at least half the Conservative Members, and of every Labour Member.
The Prime Minister:
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in mischief-making mode--[Interruption.] Clearly, he was not; clearly, he was just being silly.
Mr. Pawsey:
My right hon. Friend had a very successful breakfast meeting with business men in Warwickshire on Friday. Will he therefore repeat, for the benefit of the House, the points that he made about the social chapter and the damage that it would do to employment and prosperity in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister:
I noticed over the past few days that countries abroad, particularly Germany, are now beginning to take action to bring down some of the high social costs that have created fiscal difficulties and unemployment in their countries. In this country, we are not prepared to have a social chapter, which is damaging as it stands but would be infinitely more damaging if we signed it, the rest of Europe brought their social expenditures into the social chapter, had them approved by qualified majority vote as they could, and then imposed them on British employers at the cost of British jobs. We are bringing unemployment down. I intend to see it come down further. I do not intend to take this country into the social chapter, to stop the fall in unemployment and to see it begin to rise again. That is no bargain for the British work force.
Q6. Mr. Foulkes:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25706]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Foulkes:
Does the Prime Minister realise that not only is his deputy after his job but the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary are as well? We therefore need a categoric assurance that, however many seats the Conservatives lose on Thursday, the Prime Minister will lead his party into the next general election. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said, the Prime Minister has the support of almost half his party, and the support of all the Labour party.
The Prime Minister:
I think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say just a moment or so ago, and I have no intention of accommodating his silly questions.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
Given the interest in what happens after the next general election, did my right hon. Friend see the poll in The Times at the end of last week, which showed that the majority of people expected that, if there were to be a Labour Government, unemployment would go up, interest rates would go up, inflation would go up and there would be more control for the unions? Is that not the real reason why the Labour party wants to delay an election for as long as possible?
The Prime Minister:
Of course people would expect that of a Labour Government. People know from experience that that is what has happened with every Labour Government we have ever had at any stage in the past, and that that would occur again--unemployment up,
Q7. Mr. Gordon Prentice:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25707]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Prentice:
Does the Prime Minister appreciate that this is the last day of work for Mr. Cedric Brown, who retires with a pension of £250,000 and a continuing consultancy with British Gas of £144,000? Does the Prime Minister care to comment on today's press release from the North West gas consumers council, which states that complaints in the north-west region increased by 97 per cent. last year? Does he believe that Mr. Cedric Brown warrants that largesse?
The Prime Minister:
I believe that when people get an unsatisfactory service they are right to complain. They are right to complain to British Gas, and, now that British Gas is in the private sector and faces competition, people can expect that their complaints will be taken seriously, which they certainly were not when British Gas was in the public sector--when prices were rising dramatically and when the service was falling. Under plans for competition--for which I see no support from the Labour party--people who are not satisfied with British Gas will have the opportunity of going elsewhere. That is what competition means.
Madam Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 182) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
That the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 425) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
That the Child Support Departure Direction (Anticipatory Application) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 635) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |