Clegg, Williams, Baker and Horwood quiz the PM

[Feb 20]: ' . . Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): I wish to add my own expressions of condolence and sympathy to the family and friends of Corporal Damian Lawrence.

This being the Prime Minister's birthday, I welcome his belated acceptance of the advice from the Liberal Democrats that the temporary nationalisation of Northern Rock was the only workable option available to him, although he now seems to be jeopardising the interests of British taxpayers all over again by hiving off the bank's best assets elsewhere. Will he now admit that if he had acted sooner, he could have saved the taxpayer the tens of millions of pounds frittered away on bidders' costs and prevented the untold damage done to this country's reputation as a world financial centre?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition for their best wishes on my birthday.

I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the question of Northern Rock, which the Leader of the Opposition was reticent to raise, given that his party has six policies on the issue and has now decided on the worst possible option. As far as the Liberal Democrats' policy is concerned, we were right to look at all possible options and we were right to invite private buyers to make offers. Because we will be subject to legal action, we were right to look in detail at every possible bid, and we were right to draw the conclusion, after considering every possible bid, that the temporary public ownership of Northern Rock was the best way forward. As far as Granite is concerned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will not affect the sale of Northern Rock to a private buyer.

Mr. Clegg: Well, we might agree about the economically illiterate proposals from the Conservative party, but we disagree on why it took the Prime Minister so long to act on Northern Rock. Will he now agree to act in following our lead more urgently on another issue-namely, the scandalous profiteering by UK energy companies at a time when 25,000 people are predicted to die from the cold this winter alone? Does he realise those companies stand to make a £9 billion windfall profit from the European emissions trading scheme? Does he agree that that excess profit, equivalent to about £360 for every British family in this country, should be handed back to the neediest customers through lower energy prices?

The Prime Minister: I stress to the right hon. Gentleman that we were right to look at all possible options for Northern Rock before we took the decision that we did. If we had not done that, we would be subject to even greater legal action for not looking rigorously at all options. As far as energy is concerned, let me say that we are looking at the advice of the director general of Ofgem on that very matter. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it was the Labour Government who introduced the winter allowance, which is helping thousands of elderly people. It was the Labour Government who raised it to £300 for the over 80s. It was the Liberal party and the Conservative party who opposed the winter allowance . .

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): On Monday, the Prime Minister enjoyed the very best of British food at the hospitality of the National Farmers Union. He will be aware that the Office of Fair Trading claims that a number of supermarkets have abused their dominant position in the marketplace. Indeed, the Competition Commission has recommended setting up a supermarket ombudsman to ensure fair trade for British producers and continued British products for the British consumer. Will the Prime Minister implement that recommendation? If he is minded to do so, when will that be?

The Prime Minister: I think it is true to say that in the recent foot and mouth outbreak the British supermarkets helped the farm industry. They tried their best to ensure that British food was being sold in British supermarkets. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that issues have been raised by the Competition Commission. We will look at this matter, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman . .

Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): According to official Government figures-so it must be true-since 1997 the real cost of travelling by train has gone up 6 per cent. above inflation, the cost of going by bus is up 13 per cent. and the cost of going by car is down 10 per cent. Why does the Prime Minister want to penalise the public transport user? How does that help his climate change objectives and his social exclusion strategy?

The Prime Minister: We have doubled investment in railways and made it possible for hundreds of millions more people to do rail journeys in a year as a result of those decisions. The railway industry needed modernisation and that is what has been done. With reference to buses, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with our policy whereby there is now free national concessionary travel for all pensioners . .

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): The shadow price of carbon used in the Heathrow consultation was three times lower than the figure recommended in the Stern report and changed the outcome on the third runway. In future consultations, will the Government stop backtracking on the Stern report and fiddling the cost of climate change?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether there is universal agreement about the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of those figures, but I will certainly look at what he says. The fact of the matter is that this is a consultation process-people are free to put their views, and then a decision will be made.

[http://www.number10.gov.uk]