1. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of policing in Northern Ireland in relation to drug-related crime. (225763)

The Police Service of Northern Ireland is committed to building on recent successes in disrupting the supply of drugs in Northern Ireland by increasing the number of significant arrests and seizures and further reducing levels of drug-related crime.

Does the Minister share my concern about dissident paramilitary groups undertaking their own policing of drug issues? In particular, Declan Gallagher was apparently told by the Real IRA this month that he would be executed on sight for alleged drug offences and that the Real IRA is well armed and organised. What does the Minister have to say about that?

I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning activity of the kind that he has just described. Dissident republicans in Northern Ireland currently pose a threat, particularly to police officers. That needs to be dealt with, and it will be dealt with. There is no excuse whatsoever for any kind of parallel policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. The rule of law and order is there, and it should be seen to be followed.

Although we commend the success of the PSNI in obtaining large drug hauls, does the Minister share my concern, which is common to all communities in Northern Ireland, both urban and rural, about the daily peddling of drugs in the streets by so-called small fry? Our immediate concern as a community is to get the small peddlers away from our children and our streets. Will he ask the PSNI to redirect some of its energy to picking up all the small fry, who are well known to the community?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support on that important issue. He understands that we must tackle the problem at several different levels. We need to take out the organised criminal gangs that bring in drugs and distribute them to networks in local neighbourhoods, and we need to make sure that people who peddle drugs on the street are arrested and dealt with, and that young people in particular understand the dangers and harms associated with drug misuse. In that context, I met members of the district policing partnership and the community safety partnership in Craigavon yesterday. They are working to make sure that parents and children are well informed and that there is proper enforcement of the law in relation to drugs offending. A lot of very good work is happening locally.

The Minister is right that there have been significant drug hauls in Northern Ireland, many of which have taken place in my constituency since the port of Larne began to be used to import drugs. Does he accept that, as has been said, the problem is not being dealt with at street level? The assets of those who clearly live off the proceeds of such crime are not being seized in sufficient quantities. The real way to hit criminals is to put them behind bars and take their money.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to take assets off criminals. I disagree with his view that that is not happening, because it is happening. Our approach has been reinforced by the coming together of the Assets Recovery Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which is beginning to make a difference. We need to take assets off criminals, and we need to make sure that where there is evidence of criminality, people are brought to court and dealt with.

What further progress can be made on the proceeds of crime? Where does Northern Ireland lie in the league table of confiscating criminal assets, especially from drug barons?

In Northern Ireland, we have a solid record on taking assets from criminal gangs and indeed from individual criminals. That effort has been reinforced by the coming together of the agencies, as I have described. I am committed to reporting to the Northern Ireland public on a quarterly basis how effective we have been in that particular quarter in relation to asset recovery. My hon. Friend is right: people want to see criminals being brought to book and having their assets taken from them, and they want to see those assets being put into funding front-line policing and other community services.

Will the Minister acknowledge the continued significant problem of cannabis in Northern Ireland, where seizures of cannabis increased by 16 per cent. last year? Will he also clarify whether the PSNI will have success in implementing the Home Secretary’s published policy of three strikes and out, given that the police national computer will not record the first offence when a warning is issued?

There has been considerable success in recent months in the closing down of 77 cannabis factories in Northern Ireland. Much of that cannabis was not for consumption in Northern Ireland and was for export to elsewhere. There have been 71 arrests, and cannabis worth £15 million has been seized. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating the PSNI on its very effective work in that regard. Cannabis is, of course, being reclassified to class B, and anybody who is found in possession of cannabis in Northern Ireland will be referred to the Public Prosecution Service.

2. What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the devolution of responsibilities for criminal justice and policing. (225764)

4. What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the devolution of responsibility for criminal justice and policing. (225766)

I regularly meet the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to discuss progress on devolution. The Government’s view is that devolution of policing and justice should be completed and that, in relation to those powers already involved, the Executive should meet regularly.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Given that the relationship between the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is rapidly deteriorating, does he believe that there is a realistic chance of a working Executive in the foreseeable future?

Yes I do, is the short answer to that. The Executive have not met since June, and that is a serious matter for everyone who wishes devolution well in Northern Ireland. It is absolutely in the spirit of the St. Andrews agreement that there should be stable government. There are, of course, many instruments to stable government and one of them is the meeting of the Executive. It is essential that the Executive should meet to make decisions about fuel poverty and other issues; we recognise that. However, we equally recognise that the devolution of policing and justice needs to be completed in the spirit of the St. Andrews agreement. It is also our view that if good will prevails, no single issue on the table cannot be resolved by the politicians elected in Northern Ireland.

What does the Secretary of State make of the Stormont Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s vote yesterday? It has set a timetable of five weeks for the discussion on the devolution of policing and justice in the Province. Does he think that the five-week target will be met? If it is not, will he ensure that alternative action is taken so that minds are concentrated?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue in observing the decision made yesterday by politicians elected in Northern Ireland to proceed with work by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee on policing and justice. The proposal that went from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the summer this year to that Committee, and on which the Committee is now working, represents a significant step forward in building confidence in all communities in Northern Ireland. It is for the Committee to decide on matters of timetabling, but the progress is welcome. Whatever the arguments taking place on the timing of this issue, it demonstrates a willingness by everybody to proceed with completing devolution.

I welcome what the Secretary of State has said and endorse his determination to seek progress. I remind the House that, operationally, policing is pretty well devolved already, through the Policing Board. However, it is the unfinished business of the settlement last year and it is crucial, especially to the nationalist and republican communities, that the devolution of policing and justice should occur. The republicans signed up to an historic move to support policing and the Democratic Unionist party deserves great credit for insisting on that. However, the other side of the bargain was that devolution should take place. The whole House should fully support the Secretary of State and all those involved at Stormont in achieving that as soon as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for everything that he did as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He played a very significant part in helping to achieve the agreement that allowed devolution to go forward in the elections last year, and his continued work through the BIIPB—British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body—is an extremely important part of the work of politicians in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

This issue is a matter of relationships between those people elected in Northern Ireland. Progress has always basically been made in Northern Ireland as an article of faith and trust. It is essential that we build that faith and trust to go forward, but as I have already remarked, our view is that there is no issue on which the parties need not find resolution if they wish to.

Will the Secretary of State help things by injecting a truth check with Sinn Fein that this issue was not nailed down in the St. Andrews agreement in the way that it claims? Will he further help things with a reality check to the Democratic Unionist party that devolution of justice and policing is an imperative, as a legislative assembly is not worthy of the name if it does not take responsibility for criminal law? We can achieve the best meshing of plans, budgets and policies across related services with the devolution of justice and policing. The best way for all parties to unite to confound the dangerous agenda of republican dissidents lies in securing devolution sooner rather than later.

The hon. Gentleman makes a set of extremely telling remarks about the state of the relationships between individuals in the Assembly and the Executive. It is a matter of trust, perhaps more than truth, being established in order to go forward. However, I share his view that a substantial risk to stability in Northern Ireland is caused by the new threat of dissident groups such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA—not PIRA as in the past—which are exploiting the political vacuum that risks being opened up by a perception that politics is failing in Northern Ireland. It is our view, and I hope that of the House, that what has been demonstrated in Northern Ireland is that politics can triumph over violence and bring peace and prosperity. It is essential that we continue to build that trust so that those who might turn to crime are prevented from doing so.

Will the Secretary of State add his voice to those saying that it is deeply unacceptable for Sinn Fein alone to block meetings of the Executive when all the other parties want those meetings to happen and the people of Northern Ireland want decisions made for the good of everybody—in the interests not only of Unionists or nationalists but of the people of Northern Ireland—and that the blame for there being no such meetings clearly lies with Sinn Fein? Does he also agree that it is wrong to continue to assert that Unionism signed up to any kind of date for the devolution of policing and justice, which would involve people who were murdering the police a short time ago being involved in running the police? As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) pointed out, this matter was not agreed at St. Andrews, and Sinn Fein received no such commitment from Unionists.

It goes without saying that it is essential that government is seen to be stable and functioning in Northern Ireland. The Executive are a tool of the institutions. It is essential to resolve the problems that have arisen, which have resulted in some decisions on the Executive agenda not being agreed, thereby preventing meetings from taking place. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the critical issues for Sinn Fein rests on agreement about producing a date on which policing and justice will be transferred. I share his analysis of the St. Andrews agreement. However, within that agreement between the British and Irish Governments, it was perfectly clear that it was the view of both that it would be possible, within a timetable of 12 months, to complete that transfer, given confidence in the community. I remind him that we have to be very careful about allowing confidence building to be an excuse for indefinitely delaying the transfer. I know that the leader of his party is working extremely hard in expressing his view that it is an ideal, as well as a manifesto commitment, that his party completes it. However, this is about trust and working in the spirit of St. Andrews, and it remains the case that, if the politicians so choose, a way can be found to resolve the matter and for the Executive to meet.

In endorsing almost everything that the Secretary of State has said, may I ask him to talk immediately to those who have chosen not to take the seats that they could take in this House, and to tell them that if they remove their block on the Executive they are more likely to achieve what everybody wants than if they maintain it?

I constantly have discussions with the leaders of all the political parties, with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and indeed with those politicians who currently take the view that it is not possible to agree an agenda for the Executive to meet. The hon. Gentleman makes a number of important observations. We have expressed to Sinn Fein our belief that the Executive should meet. I would like to put on record our thanks to the special envoy of the United States, who yesterday met the leaders of all the political parties to discuss with them the issues that are producing a deadlock in the Executive. I thank the special envoy and the President of the United States for their continued involvement in wishing to see the politicians in Northern Ireland complete devolution and ensure that government is stable.

Surely we have left the days of threats and intimidation behind us. Now we are told that if we do not have devolution of policing and justice, the dissident IRA will threaten the people of Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State not remember that the main ingredient of the triple lock given by the Government allowed confidence in the community, and that the Northern Ireland Office poll acknowledged that there was not confidence in the community in the devolution of justice at this time? Surely the Executive and the Assembly should get on with the business that they have authority over, rather than looking for something else.

The hon. Gentleman always makes a telling observation, and I understand the position that he is marking by asking his question. First, I would correct him by saying that recent polling conducted by the Northern Ireland Office, and indeed previous polling, show that in each community in Northern Ireland there is support to complete the transfer of policing and justice powers from Westminster to politicians there.

The hon. Gentleman is right to observe that the legislation contains a triple lock. It is of real concern to many nationalists that the triple lock could be used as a mechanism for indefinite delay. One of the most important things to be done, therefore, which includes his work, is to help to establish trust across the communities. His party and the people whom he represents must be as committed to completing devolution within a confidence-building framework as they ever have been, and he should express to them the view that if devolution can be completed sooner, having established that confidence, it would help to achieve greater stability in government.

Northern Ireland is not exempt from the economic crisis. Unemployment rose by 45 per cent. during the past year in mid-Ulster—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the hon. Gentleman be heard.

The priorities for people outside the political bubble are the matters that affect them every day, rather than the timing of devolution of policing and justice. As the impasse is not on the principle, but on the timetable of devolution, has the right hon. Gentleman made it crystal clear that blocking the Executive is wholly unacceptable as recession looms?

It has to be said that the Executive not meeting would be unacceptable to all those who want to see stable government, whether there is a downturn or not—or whatever description the hon. Gentleman chooses of the economic situation of the country. However, there should not be a false choice. It is not a choice between the Executive meeting or not dealing with the devolution of policing and justice. It was essential to bring the nationalist and republican community on board that the articles of faith enshrined in the principles of St. Andrews, between the two Governments, were seen as such. It remains as important today as it was this time last year that Unionism demonstrates its commitment to completing devolution, but that is not a choice with the Executive not meeting. The Executive must meet because there are decisions to be made. I hope—I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government on this point—that we can get all parties in Northern Ireland to focus on what needs to be done, which is to address the problems of the downturn, of course, but they cannot be allowed simply to park the issue of policing and justice for another day. The work on that issue needs to continue now.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned St. Andrews, where the British and Irish Governments agreed that devolution should go ahead only when cross-community confidence was sufficient. As all parties in Northern Ireland bought into the current settlement, will he give the House a clear assurance that the matter should be decided locally and that, if there is still no agreement from the Executive on timing in current months, he will not introduce legislation to impose it on one section of the community?

As I have already said, it remains the view of the Government that the parties in Northern Ireland should be able to find a resolution to these issues. Equally, it remains the case that the British and Irish Governments have not simply washed their hands of responsibility for ensuring the stability of government in Northern Ireland, as it has still yet to complete devolution, not least with the transfer of policing and justice powers. Therefore, as in other areas of Government policy, we will stand with the people of Northern Ireland. We will help the people of Northern Ireland in any way that we are asked to achieve stability in government. That means encouraging not only the Executive to meet, but the political parties to complete the policing and justice process, not least because we believe that there is now sufficient community confidence to do that, and it is the duty of politicians there to proceed and execute their responsibilities for stability.

Could not the Government help with confidence-building measures on security and criminal justice in Northern Ireland by releasing to the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing GCHQ’s detailed records about the time lines and exactly what it did in response to the Royal Ulster Constabulary’s request to track and follow people who we understand were the perpetrators of those crimes?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the horrendous crimes that took place at Omagh 10 years ago. Despite the passage of 10 years, I am sure that everybody in the House will join me in remembering the 29 people who were murdered and the two unborn children.

My hon. Friend understandably makes remarks about intercept recordings, which “Panorama” recently threw into the light. He will know that the Prime Minister has asked Sir Peter Gibson to conduct an urgent review to consider the way in which the intercept evidence was shared and used that day. The Prime Minister has asked for that report to be brought to him as soon as possible, and he made it clear that he will report to the House as soon as is practicable.

The Secretary of State is right to identify the lack of trust between the parties as a major barrier to progress. What can he and the Government do to rebuild that trust? Does he accept that it must be rebuilt not only in Belfast but in the House? The House endorsed the St. Andrews agreement on the basis that it reflected trust between the parties and commitments that were made but are not now being honoured.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, especially in the past few months, when the Government have been working with the parties to seek resolution to the problems. He is right to refer to trust and the need to establish it, and to say that everyone in the House has a responsibility to ensure that government in Northern Ireland is successful. It is in all our interests for devolution to work. The work yesterday of the special envoy, Paula Dobriansky, and that of the American Government, the Irish Government, the British Government and the Opposition parties—I thank them for their continued support—is to try to help the parties in Northern Ireland achieve resolution. However, it is important for everyone to recognise that we all have a responsibility, and every part that we can play to help the parties develop and rebuild trust is essential at this moment.

3. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. (225765)

For the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the security situation has been transformed and there is continued and welcome progress towards normality. However, there are small, completely unrepresentative factions of dissident republicans who remain active and dangerous. While loyalist groups are making encouraging progress, they have yet to decommission their arms.

Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the recent attacks on police officers in Northern Ireland? What assessment has he made of the danger that they face and what steps is he taking to improve the security situation in Northern Ireland?

The House will wish to know that the security threat to police officers in Northern Ireland is higher at the moment than at any point in the past five years. The hon. Lady mentioned attacks on police officers; several have taken place, and they were marked by the cowardice as much as the criminality of those who perpetrated them. We owe a huge debt not only in Northern Ireland but throughout Great Britain to the brave men and women of the Police Service of Northern Ireland who daily put their lives on the line to protect the communities. Their welfare is of concern not only to the Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Orde, but to the Government and everybody in the House. We will make every resource available to ensure that we protect our police officers. However, it is the wish of those police officers that stability be maintained in Northern Ireland. We can support that best by completing devolution, and by the Executive meeting.

I pay tribute to the very brave police officers who are withstanding these terrible attacks.

On 16 August, dissident republicans carried out an attack in County Fermanagh in which they used Semtex that the Deputy Chief Constable described as old Semtex. In other words, it is likely to have come from the IRA, which was supposed to have disarmed and put all its weapons beyond use. What does the Secretary of State make of the situation and what assessment has he made of the likelihood of dissident republicans getting further supplies and of IRA members joining the dissidents in carrying out such cowardly attacks?

The hon. Gentleman again makes an extremely important set of observations about the attack that happened in the middle of August. Let me remind the House that the PSNI is and always has been aware that before decommissioning took place there was a concern that a small amount of ammunition and possibly Semtex may have been transferred. However, I would say this to the hon. Gentleman. It is important to focus on where the threat today is coming from. It is not coming from the threats of the past. The threat is not coming from PIRA; it is coming from new organisations that are, regrettably, filling the space in a political vacuum. I remind him and other hon. Members of the Independent Monitoring Commission report that was produced in September, which was categorical in saying that PIRA has completely abandoned its past and is completely committed to a political future. The organisation has been allowed to wither and the army council is effectively redundant. We should focus today on where the threat is really coming from, not on where it once was and has now gone away from.

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 October. (226779)

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is today at the European Council. He will make a statement to the House on his return.

May I ask the Leader of the House, who is obviously sitting in Superman’s seat, whether she will look at the small business sector? I met a Northumberland jeweller in my constituency last week who has five workers, but who is thinking about laying two or three off. Can the Government do anything for these small businesses?

It is because of the importance of small businesses in our economy, particularly their importance as employers and given their impact on jobs, that we will do everything that we can to support them through what is undoubtedly a difficult time. One of the actions that we are taking is to ensure that Government and Government agencies pay their bills earlier, by cutting down the time that it takes the Government to pay from 30 days to 10 days. We want to ensure that we back small businesses up with more help through the European Investment Bank. One of the main reasons why we have been stabilising the banking system and buying shares in the banks is to ensure that they start lending again to small businesses at reasonable rates. We will do whatever it takes to back up our small business sector.

On the day we discover that unemployment has risen by 164,000—the largest rise in 17 years—it is a grim day for the British economy and a time of anxiety for many families, as hon. Members, this week in all parts of the House, will acknowledge. Given that many companies have been hit by the credit problems, as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) just mentioned, and that if they can be given some breathing space, job losses can be reduced, will the Government now reform the insolvency laws along the lines that we have proposed?

We have already changed the insolvency provisions for businesses, in the Enterprise Act in 2003; we have already taken action on that. We are very concerned about unemployment and we are not complacent at all about the situation, despite the fact that unemployment is considerably lower than it was in 1997.

There are two issues that I would like to point out to the House today. First, we are announcing £100 million extra to help those people who lose their jobs to retrain and get the skills that they need for new jobs. There are still 600,000 vacancies in the economy, and we need to help people who lose their jobs to get new ones. There will also be extra help for home owners who become unemployed. Instead of having to wait 39 weeks before they can get help to pay their mortgage, there will be help for them to pay their mortgage 13 weeks after they become unemployed.

Will the right hon. and learned Lady acknowledge that statements about 1997 might now be complacent, given the forecast from Capital Economics this morning? It states:

“We now expect unemployment to rise to 3 million by the end of 2010, exceeding the rise in the early 1990s”.

Will she also acknowledge that the £100 million programme announced by the Government this morning will be spread over three years, at £33 million a year? That will amount to £18 a year for each unemployed person. Will she also acknowledge that that money has already been allocated to the skills budget and has already been announced? Would it not therefore be a good idea to adopt our proposal, which the Federation of Small Businesses says

“should save thousands of jobs from going under”?

As I have said, we have already made the changes to the insolvency provisions, in the 2003 Enterprise Act. We are not complacent about the situation in the economy. We have made no bones about the fact that our economy is facing hard times, but the right hon. Gentleman should not write our economy off. Our economy is made of sterner stuff, and the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have said that we will take every action we can, not only to stabilise our economy nationally but to work internationally with other Governments to stabilise the global system. That is why the Prime Minister is not here today.

We understand why the Prime Minister is not here today. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Lady is not complacent, because she wrote in her blog in February that

“people know that there is global financial turbulence but are not worried about their own prospects in 2008”.

Perhaps she will now acknowledge that that is no longer the situation. If she will not adopt our proposed measures on insolvency, may I ask her about another group of people who have been hit by the economic crisis in recent days? They are the people who have retired from their jobs. One such group is the pensioners who are forced to buy an annuity on reaching retirement or on reaching the age of 75. They will be locked into a lower income for the rest of their lives. Last week, we proposed suspending the rule on this, and Ministers said that they were looking at the proposal. Will the right hon. and learned Lady now cut through the delay, announce a decision by the Government and tell us that the Government will suspend that rule in order to help the incomes of thousands of pensioners into the future?

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the blog that I wrote earlier this year. While it is true that the global seeds of this problem—the increase in oil and food prices, as well as financial instability—have been coming over a period of time, the impact on family finances, businesses and jobs has been sudden, not only in this country but around the world.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned pensioners. Yes, we are concerned about pensioners, who particularly feel the effect of the fuel increases. That is why we have increased the winter fuel payment. It is important to consider the question of the impact on people—albeit a small number of people—who have to buy their annuities within a certain period of time. I know that this is something that the Treasury is aware of, and I know that the Department for Work and Pensions is talking to the Treasury about the issue. But the most important thing is that we stabilise the markets so that shares can continue to be steady and their value can grow.

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Lady acknowledges the importance of the issue about pensions. However, it is all very well being concerned about it and looking at it. Have not the events of recent times shown that swiftness in decision making is at a premium? Will she therefore undertake to go back to her colleagues in the Treasury this afternoon? Since this matter was at the top of our concerns, as she herself said only last Thursday, and since many pensioners are worried about it, will she sort it out today with her colleagues, so that they can come back to the House this week to tell us that that rule has been suspended?

I do not think that the Prime Minister or my colleagues in the Treasury need any advice from me on that point; nor do I think that they need any from the right hon. Gentleman. He can rest assured that they will act not only swiftly, but sure-footedly. There is a serious situation across the board—whether it be in respect of jobs, small businesses, the housing market, charities or local government—and we are determined to take the action that is necessary, not only nationally, but internationally, to see this country through.

We look forward to the action—[Interruption]—instead of concern and talking, which is all we have had so far at today’s Question Time. Small businesses and pensioners are two of the casualties of an economy built on debt, so what exactly do the Government mean when they say that they are insisting that institutions which are being bailed out will maintain borrowing at 2007 levels—the year at the height of the boom that has turned to bust? Is that not irresponsible? Why did Baroness Vadera of the other place say that there was

“no requirement for banks to lend forcibly”,

while the Chancellor was saying that lending would be maintained “at 2007 levels”? Who is speaking for the Government and what are their policies on the lending of those banks?

Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman and the House. Having ensured that money goes in via the Bank of England so that extra liquidity is available, having ensured that loans are made available on a guaranteed basis at commercial rates and having made provision for buying shares, we want to make sure that, after this Government’s actions, instead of the banks just sitting on the capital, they actually lend it to small businesses and home owners. What would be the point of Government action if it did not make a difference to the people who are feeling the pressure of the global credit crunch? What has been written into the agreement with the banks in which we have taken shares is that they should, at reasonable rates, re-establish credit lines to the housing market and to small businesses. When it comes to Government debt, which the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned, I do not regret and we do not resile for one minute the investment in our schools and the public investment in our hospitals.

Over the last 11 years, during which we were investing in hospitals and schools, we were also paying off Government debt. In 1997, public debt as a share of GDP was 43 per cent, and we reduced it to 37 per cent. We are now in a position to allow Government debt to rise in order to back up the economy in the way that is necessary. On Monday, the right hon. Gentleman’s party backed the measures we took to help to get the financial services working properly. It is a shame that he does not back the means to achieving that end.

Of course we backed those measures, but the Government are no longer in a position to boast about their economic record when taxes have risen by more than £5,000 for every family in the country since 1997, when the World Economic Forum says that 104 other countries are better prepared than us for the economic downturn, when debt has risen remorselessly, when unemployment is rising at the fastest rate for 17 years and when inflation has trebled since 1997. Against that background, is it not time to acknowledge that the claim to have abolished boom and bust was one of the most foolish, one of the most hubristic and one of the most irresponsible claims ever made by a British Prime Minister?

I think that this is a serious moment for the economy and that it requires action from the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman should not write Britain off or compare us unfavourably with other countries. The Prime Minister will take action to protect this economy, and he will also work with the other European countries to ensure that international action is taken. It could possibly be said that, in that respect, he is a man with a plan.

Fifty-five thousand members of RAF Bomber Command lost their lives in world war two, yet today there is still no national memorial paying tribute to the sacrifice made by those brave men and women in defence of our nation. Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in supporting the RAF Bomber Command memorial fund as it seeks to raise £2.5 million for such a memorial, and will she ensure that the Ministry of Defence consults the memorial fund properly before finally deciding on a location?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will see that the Ministry of Defence thinks very carefully about that request, and looks favourably on it. We must ensure that we recognise and continue to pay tribute to those who, like the 55,000 whom he mentioned, have paid with their lives for this country.

How really prepared are the Government to deal with the hundreds of thousands of people who are now losing their jobs, given that they have just completed a massive cut in the staff of benefit offices and jobcentres? While the two measures that the right hon. and learned Lady has announced today are very welcome, can she give us an absolute assurance that people approaching those services in search of financial help and emergency loans—which does not mean waiting for 13 weeks—will be dealt with promptly, efficiently and sympathetically, as the bankers were this week in their hour of need?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The action taken in respect of the banks was taken not just for the sake of the bankers, although the financial services industry is a large and important employer, but so that we could get credit flowing back into small businesses and the housing market.

The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about the services and support that will be given to people—not just talked about—when they face the awful prospect of being without jobs. I would say that there are improved and increased services for each individual from the Department for Work and Pensions, not just as a result of the important work of Jobcentre Plus, but in the private and voluntary organisations that work alongside people who have lost their jobs to ensure that those people have the skills and the confidence to obtain their next jobs.

We are not complacent about today’s job figures, which are definitely very concerning, but there are still 600,000 vacancies in the economy.

I welcome those latter comments, but I sense that the Minister does not realise that there is a very real emergency. Given that there is that very real emergency, why do the Government—and also the Conservatives—insist on this absurd monastic vow of silence that means never even talking about interest rates? There are millions of people out there worrying about their homes and their businesses, and clamouring for a deep cut in interest rates to prevent this recession from turning into a deep slump.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s assertion about the Government’s unpreparedness. The Government worked for a number of weeks to ensure that we could take action to stabilise the banking system, and that is what was announced to the House on Monday. The purpose was to ensure that money was lent to small businesses so that they could continue to flourish and play the part that they play in the economy, and continue to employ people.

I do not really know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about in relation to interest rates. There was an interest rate cut last week, and it was co-ordinated with other central banks across Europe and in America.

Q2. Many of my constituents are very grateful for the decisive action taken by the United Kingdom Government following the collapse of the Icelandic banks, but what will the Government do for the charities that have funds in Icelandic banks? Will they protect those funds? My constituents depend very much on the charities that protect the most vulnerable in our society, and need their support in these difficult times. (226780)

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I think that all hon. Members are concerned about charities and the effect on them of the collapse of the Icelandic financial services industry. Small charities will get the same protection as individuals; they will get 100 per cent. protection for their deposits. We are taking steps to protect larger charities by freezing the assets of the Icelandic banks and by lending £100 million while the unfreezing of those assets is sorted out. Treasury officials have been sent to Reykjavik to try to ensure that the situation is resolved, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office has met the leaders of the charitable sector. He has issued a written statement, and he will keep the House updated.

Given the bail-out of depositors in Icelandic banks, will the Government now compensate Equitable Life policyholders?

The action we have taken in relation to the financial services system has not just been to protect individuals, important though that is, but also to ensure that there is not a whole-scale loss of confidence in the entire banking system. We have been concerned to address not only individual loss, but systemic failure.

Q3. My right hon. and learned Friend must be aware that the biggest concern among families, pensioners and businesses is how they will pay their fuel bills. I wonder what we can do, and what good offices my right hon. and learned Friend can employ, to ensure that we sit the greedy energy companies down, with their immoral profits and obscene earnings, and bring prices down to ensure that families can pay their bills this Christmas. We have taken measures for the longer term, but what can we do to help them in the short term? (226781)

My hon. Friend is right that we need action not only by the Government—and we are taking that action—but by the energy companies. He is also right that increased fuel bills hit hardest those who can least afford it. We are taking action. As he knows, we have increased the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, and we have also set up a home insulation package. We expect the falling oil prices to feed through into gas and electricity prices. While the Government will play their part, we know that the eyes of everyone in the House, as well as those of the Government, will be on the energy companies to make sure they play their part too.

Q4. Just as the Chancellor changed the regulatory framework for the banks when he came into office, which contributed to this crisis, the Government’s regulatory oversight of Equitable Life has been seen as partly responsible for the circumstances that many constituents of all hon. Members find themselves in. What are the Government going to do about Equitable Life? (226782)

It is quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government must take responsibility for a financial banking system crisis whose origins clearly were global and whose impact has also been global. On regulation of the financial industry, the hon. Gentleman might remember that there were seven regulators before we set up the Financial Services Authority, and it was very important as part of improving regulation to bring them all into that one regulatory body.

Q5. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the 2009 European interparliamentary space conference will be held in this Parliament next autumn? Will she support this unique opportunity to showcase Britain’s high-growth, hi-tech space industry, and, crucially, in terms of next month’s European Space Agency meeting, will she express support for the UK Government’s stance on the efforts of the UK space industry to tackle the climate change agenda and the reduction of poverty in Africa? (226783)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The space industry is important. It is in the forefront of science and scientific jobs, and I wish it success with its conference—and perhaps I may express the hope that the summit will boldly go where no summit has previously gone.

Many of my constituents at Bradford & Bingley and other local businesses face a very uncertain future. Given that the Prime Minister egged on the housing bubble and the economic bubble by claiming that he had personally ended boom and bust, and given that it was his tripartite system of regulation that failed so spectacularly, will the Government take any responsibility for the economic problems that my constituents are facing?

I do not accept that the economic crisis that has currently hit this country is the responsibility of the 1 million extra home owners in this country. I do not accept that for a moment. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the economic circumstances that face this country, although they are national in their impact, are global in their origin.

Q6. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the minimum wage rose to £5.73 on 1 October. How many people will benefit throughout the United Kingdom from that increase, which is another great achievement by this Labour Government? Is she aware that on the day of the vote on that, the Scottish National party did not turn up? (226784)

I welcome my hon. Friend’s drawing the attention of the House to the national minimum wage increase this month. I understand that something like 90,000 people in Scotland will see their pay go up as a result of the rise. The minimum wage is important for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the whole of England, and we have no intention of letting it wither away. When it comes to difficult economic times, those on low incomes will get help, and I think we can expect those on the highest incomes to show restraint.

We are undoubtedly facing uncertain times right across the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me, my colleagues and many people in Northern Ireland that we face an additional problem? Under the devolutionary arrangement that we currently have, many Departments have packages in place that will help people through the problems that we will face over the winter and in the next year, but they are being blocked from using them because of the activities of Sinn Fein.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reminds me that the Executive need to meet and devolution of policing needs to take place. The Secretary of State is a member of the National Economic Council, and therefore the question of the economic impact on Northern Ireland is very much in the Government’s mind.

Q7. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the money that has been invested in the banks will not be at the expense of investment in public services? People such as pensioners, parents with children in schools, patients of the NHS and public sector workers will be concerned that the money that we have invested to rescue the country from the excesses of the masters of the universe must not come at the expense of those services. Can she give that assurance? (226785)

I can give that assurance. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that it is important that we carry on with crucial public investment, and the uprating of benefits and pensions will happen in the normal way.

Q8. When we hear that Northern Rock has passed just one tenth of last week’s interest rate cuts on to its mortgage holders, does the Leader of the House not feel that we need more assurance that the billions that have been spent on the bank bail-out will trickle down to where they are needed—small businesses that want to borrow at affordable rates and people who are worried about the roof over their head? (226786)

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the whole point of this Government action. It is not for its own sake but actually for the results that it will achieve. We are determined, and indeed agreements have been entered into, that credit will start flowing again to small businesses and to the housing market, in order that we can stabilise the economy and see it through this difficult time.

Q9. I concur with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) in an earlier question. With electricity prices reported to be four times higher in the United Kingdom than in France, and with the impact that that has on UK businesses and particularly on energy-intensive users, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one way to bring prices down is to increase capacity? The best way to do that is to extend the lives of existing generators, including safe nuclear power generators. Will she urge her Cabinet colleagues to do that, to ease the burden on British business? (226787)

Obviously, we need to ease the burden on British business in the way that my hon. Friend describes, as well as to assist businesses with energy conservation and to step forward with the programme for investment in renewables.

Q10. The right hon. and learned lady had the honesty to admit during her campaign for the deputy leadership of the Labour party that the Government had made a mistake over the war in Iraq. Does she think that the public are owed a similar apology over the failures in policy and weakness in regulation that have contributed to the current economic crisis? (226788)

What we owe to the people in Iraq, to the other countries alongside which our soldiers are working and to our armed forces is to work to ensure that we have stability and peace in Iraq, so that Iraq can take over its own security and policing as soon as possible and our troops can then come home.

Whatever outrageous fortunes the global economy may blow our way, will my right hon. and learned Friend commit herself again to this Government’s aim of eradicating child poverty by 2020 and confirm that that commitment will not be violated?

We remain absolutely committed to eradicating child poverty, and we hope that both sides of the House will support not only that commitment, but the measures necessary to achieve that aim.