1. What timetable he has set for responding to the report of the Consultative Group on the Past. (259264)

I am taking time to reflect on the consultative group’s detailed report, which deals with some of the most difficult challenges facing Northern Ireland today. We will need to hear the views from a wide range of people before making a response, and we will be interested in the conclusions of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which is also considering the report.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, by allowing the consultative group to define a victim in the way that it has, the natural scales of justice and, indeed, the moral order of life and death have been upset, and will he give a commitment to the House that he will not accept any recommendations that will cause further distress to innocent victims and reward those who have inflicted loss upon themselves?

May I begin by paying tribute to the work of Lord Eames and Denis Bradley in producing this report? The matter we invited them to explore is extraordinarily challenging, and I am fully aware of the controversy that has arisen about some of the recommendations, not least on recognition payments, which, last week, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I made very clear that the Government will not accept. I am equally aware of the concern that has been expressed about the issue of so-called moral equivalence. Therefore, let me be very clear about one matter in this regard: any terrorist act is utterly reprehensible, and we can all acknowledge that terrorism has led to awful suffering in Northern Ireland, but we now need a way to move forward that meets the needs of victims and helps Northern Ireland society work towards a shared future, and that is why I made it very clear last week that the Government would not consider recognition payments.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the conviction yesterday in respect of the murders nine years ago of Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine, but does he recognise that there are many outstanding questions in that case, which are typical of all too many other cases from the past, in terms of the need for both truth and justice? Those questions relate to the role of informers and agents and the readiness of the Chief Constable to go for public interest immunity certificates, rather than to pursue full investigation and proper prosecution in due time, leaving too much on the shoulders of families?

First, may I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the conviction, which it is extremely important for us to acknowledge? Many issues to do with the past must be addressed in Northern Ireland. In putting all this into context, one of the most important things to say is that an enormous burden is placed on every family who lost a loved one in the course of the difficulties, and that is why, again, I say to the House that we will spend a long time reflecting on the proposals in the Eames-Bradley report. We will also look forward to the report of the Select Committee, whose Chairman, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I am glad to see is in his place. We have many lessons to learn from the past in Northern Ireland, and if we are to be able to move forward to secure an environment of lasting peace and prosperity, we must ensure that Northern Ireland is not held in the grip of its very troubled past, but finds a settled place for a settled future.

May I thank the Secretary of State for what he said about the work of our Committee? May I also congratulate him on ruling out the misjudged and mistaken recommendation on so-called recognition payments? However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that Lord Eames and Mr. Bradley appeared before the Committee last week and gave some extremely interesting evidence, and I hope he agrees that it would be a pity if their whole report is put on one side because of one particularly mistaken recommendation.

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s observations on the report. There is no question but that the report itself poses a number of challenges, and there are sections of it that will pose some communities greater difficulty than others. Nevertheless, the lesson of Northern Ireland is very clear: if we have political courage and leadership, and if we are able to confront the challenges, we will find a way through. That might take time, and it is appropriate sometimes to remember that time is our friend.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments of appreciation on the work of the group and the individuals concerned. Does he accept, however, that his off-the-cuff dismissal on a radio programme of that one somewhat contentious recommendation, without giving it the due consideration it deserved, has, to some extent, belittled the work of that group and of those individuals?

First, may I firmly underline again my thanks to Lord Eames and Denis Bradley for producing this report? It is important to remind the House that not a single one of the recommendations in this excellent piece of work was simply dreamt up by Lord Eames or Denis Bradley one morning. Even the highly contentious recommendation of recognition payments, for which there is clearly no consensus, was something they had heard suggested from a number of people in the community, and not just from one section of the community. I do not believe that we dismissed it in an off-the-cuff way, because it was perfectly clear from the representations that were made, not just from one community but from across the communities, that there was no consensus on recognition payments.

This is a highly emotive issue, and we are all aware of the very understandable emotions that were invoked, so I do not wish to suggest in any way that it was simply an emotional response. Having said that, the group was asked to find a consensus on how to deal with the past but when it came to the issue of recognition payments, it was patently obvious—it was not an off-the-cuff decision, but a considered one—that there was no consensus on it and therefore it was entirely inappropriate to proceed with that recommendation.

The Secretary of State has recognised the lack of consensus on the so-called recognition payments, which were obnoxious in drawing a moral equivalence between perpetrators and victims. Will he apply the same principle to the other recommendations of the Consultative Group on the Past: that there must be a consensus on the sensitive issues in that report? There are many concerns, particularly in the Unionist community, about not only the obnoxious recognition payments proposal, but other elements of the Eames-Bradley report. There should never be anything that presents an equivalence between victims and perpetrators, and the Secretary of State must take that need for consensus into account when acting on the other recommendations.

I firmly recognise that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely entitled to his point of view, which I suggest to him is not one that is entirely shared across the House or across Northern Ireland. None the less, I respect the fact that his view is strongly and deeply held, although I would beg to disagree with some of his remarks and conclusions. It is clear to me that there is consensus in Northern Ireland on the need to deal with the past. There is clear consensus among many on another issue: to deal with issues of the past by public inquiries, which may lead to some £200 million being spent on one inquiry, deeply troubles not only this House—rightly—but many people in Northern Ireland who genuinely pose a question about whether the public interest is being served by the public inquiry. The Eames-Bradley group was right to address that issue, and it put forward proposals, which this House and those in Northern Ireland must now carefully consider.

On 25 February, the Secretary of State said on the BBC online that

“it is an interesting idea, but very clearly the time is not right for a recognition payment.”

Can he confirm that the time will never be right?

I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to be extremely careful here, because it is very easy to pour scorn on the work of Eames and Bradley in relation to the concept of recognition payments. He should remember that they did not invent the concept themselves—that proposal was put forward not just by one individual, but by a number of individuals; it was put forward not just by one community, but by a cross-section of the community. Because the idea has failed to find consensus, it is right for the Government to say that, at this time, we rule it out. I simply say to him that he needs to listen to what people are saying and he needs to be careful about the conclusions that he is drawing, because there are people who hold a very deep conviction on the issue. I happen to disagree with it, but that does not mean to say that I am not prepared to listen.

That was a very interesting reply. To pick up on the Secretary of State’s answers to my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), we on the Conservative Benches welcome the Secretary of State’s decision not to go ahead with the payments, which we consider to be repugnant. To put it simply, does he agree that there can be no moral equivalence between the two little boys murdered in Warrington and their murderers?

I am particularly aware of the two little boys murdered in Warrington, because the constituency is a neighbouring one to mine and it is an issue about which I know that not only the people of Warrington and Merseyside, but the whole House feels extremely strongly. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman of what Eames and Bradley rightly set out to do: to have the overarching objective of promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. As I have said, I personally have condemned totally the activities and consequences of terrorism in Northern Ireland. There is nobody in this House who would sensibly condone the behaviour of terrorists, and there must never be any possibility for us to do anything other than condemn it. But I say to him that we need to understand that there are many people in Northern Ireland who have strong views, and that it is important to listen and, having listened, to learn.

The comments by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and others indicate the difficulties that lie ahead for the Secretary of State if he insists on proceeding on what he terms the basis of consensus. There was a broad consensus on recognition payments, and it was broadly opposed to them. He was right to abandon the proposal, but I hope that he will proceed with the remainder of the Eames-Bradley report, which is excellent in its conclusions. Does he agree that so-called moral equivalence is not what the reconciliation process is about?

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the key word of the Eames-Bradley report—reconciliation. They rightly understood that they needed a clear objective, which was to promote peace and stability. In order to promote that, it would be necessary to reconcile people and communities, and that is why they recognised the excellent work of the Historical Enquiries Team and the police ombudsman in investigating the past. Eames and Bradley also rightly—in my opinion—came to the conclusion that the current arrangements probably need to be changed for the long term. That is one example of one proposal in the Eames-Bradley report that the Government are considering very carefully. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his careful consideration of the entire report, not just one highly controversial section.

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Parades Commission on parades planned for summer 2009; and if he will make a statement. (259265)

I met the chairman of the Parades Commission yesterday when he briefed me on the ongoing work of the commission. I look to all those involved in the 2009 parading season to build on the positive progress made in recent years.

It is now two years since Lord Ashdown was appointed to chair a strategic review of parading in Northern Ireland. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to update the House about progress in that regard. Does he agree that whatever national recommendations might eventually emerge, the key to peaceful parading is for local organisations and communities to enter dialogue to resolve any difficulties they may have at local level?

The strategic review of parading that is chaired by Lord Ashdown issued an interim report last April. Since then, it has consulted extensively across Northern Ireland and it is still compiling its final report. While I cannot tell the House when I expect to receive it, I hope that it will be soon. My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important issue: in Northern Ireland last year there were some 3,800 parades, most of them uncontentious. Where there is a dispute, it is best resolved when the paraders and the protestors sit down together and work out a practical solution to their disagreement. That has been the key to success in recent years, and I hope that it will be the key to success in 2009 as well.

Does the Minister accept that the issue of parades is inextricably linked to the issue of policing and justice, and that the police expend considerable time and enormous sums of money on dealing with contested parades? There is no faith in Northern Ireland on either side of the community in the Parades Commission. The work of Lord Ashdown is therefore pivotal. I have had the opportunity to speak to Lord Ashdown and real progress is being made with his report. Will the Minister do everything possible to encourage publication of that report and the overcoming of the remaining obstacle that appears to stand in the way of publication?

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the costs of policing contentious parades are unacceptable, and that money could be spent on neighbourhood policing across Northern Ireland. I know that he seeks a resolution to this problem every bit as much as I do. Lord Ashdown and his review body have come up with an alternative to the Parades Commission, which I hope will command support across all sections of the community in Northern Ireland and offer us a way forward. I give the right hon. Gentleman my assurance that I will continue to work with the review body to resolve any disagreements that may still exist, because he is right to say that we need a resolution to this issue within the context of the devolution of policing and justice powers.

In answer to the previous question, the Secretary of State talked about the grip of the past and, in many ways, the parades reinforce the prejudices of the past. If the Minister agrees that Northern Ireland is moving into a new era and needs to move on from its sectarian past, does he also agree that the Labour party should follow the lead of the Conservative party and field candidates in national elections in Northern Ireland?

That is a very interesting way of arriving at the final question. The Labour party has now established a membership in Northern Ireland and that has been agreed within the rules of my party. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—we need to leave the past behind as regards parading as well as all other aspects of the past conflict. Indeed, it is now more than three years since the dreadful events of the Whiterock parade. We have had a number of years of very peaceful parading and the key to that success has been the local dialogue and the local agreement between people who have a fundamental disagreement about parading. It is possible to find solutions and I encourage people to do so this year, too.

3. What assessment he has had made of the level of threat to the peace process from dissident groups; and if he will make a statement. (259266)

The Chief Constable and I have made it clear that the dissident republican threat has risen significantly in recent months. As a result the Police Service of Northern Ireland has proportionately increased its response. It is important for the House to note that these criminals have absolutely nothing to offer the people of Northern Ireland and this House should send an unequivocal message that we reject their attempts to threaten the community.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. A car bomb was placed near a school in County Down in January following a warning from the head of MI5 that republican groups had been growing in number in the area. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what has happened in relation to that car bomb and attempts to track down the perpetrators? What is being done about those groups, which seem to be on the rise again?

The House will wish to know that from May to the end of the period of the recent Independent Monitoring Commission review there has been an increase in the number of attacks from dissidents and that that number is now higher than at any time in the past five years. My hon. Friend asked about the specific events at Castlewellan at the end of January. It is right to report to the House that several controlled explosions were carried out on 29 January, leading to the discovery of a timer power unit and a viable explosive device in the boot of the vehicle. That was the second dissident republican improvised explosive device so far this year.

I want to join all local politicians in Northern Ireland in utterly condemning that senseless act. It is crucial that we should recognise, however, that the police response will be proportionate. They have upped their response, but we have to recognise something extremely—

Order. I know how strongly the Secretary of State feels that this information should be put across to the House, but we are in Question Time. He is really making a statement and I have to consider Back Benchers who want to ask questions.

No one could deny the Secretary of State’s statement that dissident republican terrorists have nothing to offer the community. Thirty years of Provisional IRA terrorism did not have anything to offer the community, either. We can condemn terrorism for as long as we like, but what active steps will the Government take to ensure that we defeat terrorism and allow Northern Ireland to move into a genuinely peaceful and tranquil era?

It is important to tell the hon. Gentleman that we can do two things. We can back our Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security forces, and we should congratulate them on foiling this terrible attempt by a small group of criminals with no community support to threaten that community. It is also important to send the message to Northern Ireland that politics is winning and that that is the only way forward.

Did the Secretary of State read the in-depth interview in the Irish News of 16 February with the leader of Oglaigh na hEireann, the group that claims responsibility for the bomb at Castlewellan in my constituency? The leader of the group claimed that the intent was to cause the maximum murder of civilians and military personnel in Ballykinler. Some of my local residents are concerned about the considerable delay between the bomb being found abandoned in the morning and the detonation of its contents. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no restraint in giving intelligence information to the operating security forces, even to protect the sources of that information?

It is important to recognise that this is now very much an ongoing police investigation. It is also important for me not to make a running commentary on that investigation, but I believe that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks.

As has been mentioned, there has been an increase in dissident activity that has included a brutal murder, the use of pipe bombs and a petrol bomb. Dissident weapons have also been discovered, including sawn-off shotguns and pistols, and in particular there have also been attacks on the police. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that the police response will be proportionate, but what protection can he give to the police? Like the communities, they too are the targets.

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House’s attention to the extraordinarily brave work carried out by members of the PSNI. I want to reassure him and other hon. Members that the Chief Constable, myself and others are doing everything that we can to protect the brave men and women of the PSNI. However, what the House can do is send an unequivocal message to the criminals who would threaten the community—that politics is winning, and that paramilitary criminal activity is always destined to fail.

4. What recent assessment he has had made of the involvement of republican paramilitary groups in drug-related crime in Northern Ireland. (259268)

The Independent Monitoring Commission has confirmed that dissident republican groups are involved in drug-related crime. The PSNI will continue to work with the other members of the organised crime task force to disrupt their criminal activities.

But of course the majority of dissident republicans used to be members of the Provisional IRA, which gained most of its money from extortion and other criminal activity while it carried out murder and terrorism. The Provisional IRA was inextricably linked to Sinn Fein, which now has Ministers in the Northern Ireland Government. Does the Minister believe that Sinn Fein ever benefited from criminal money and drug-related crime? What is his assessment of whether it still has connections with drug-related crime and other criminal activity?

The people and political parties of Northern Ireland have moved on from the days described by the hon. Gentleman. It is very important that people are able to move on from the grip of fear that dissident republican groups are attempting to deploy across the communities of Northern Ireland. One of the especially despicable things that dissident republican organisations are involved in is the extortion of money from drug dealers. In many cases, they use extreme violence but at the same time they pretend to protect communities from those who deal in drugs. It is absolutely essential that we deal with those dissidents, bring them to justice and make sure that they pay the price for their heinous crimes.

Locals in south Armagh boast that it is one of the biggest oil-producing areas of the world—not because of its geological features but because republicans smuggle and launder fuel there. Millions of pounds are lost to Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue, damage is done to the environment and violence is committed to support that criminal empire, but even so very few people have been arrested and very few assets seized. Will the Minister say when we shall see an all-out assault by the police, HMRC and the Serious Organised Crime Agency against those criminals?

We are putting that all-out assault firmly in place. Last year, I established a fuel fraud enforcement group, with the co-operation and active involvement of law enforcement agencies in Ireland as well as in Northern Ireland. Since then, there have been a number of arrests, as well as widespread seizures of equipment, cash and illegal fuel. The hon. Gentleman is right that these groups are intent on raising money to support their terrorist activity. They absolutely have to be stopped and I am determined, with partners in the organised crime task force, to do exactly that.

6. What estimate he has made of the total final cost to the public purse of the current public inquiries taking place in Northern Ireland. (259271)

The Bloody Sunday inquiry is expected to cost a total of £190 million, including costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence. The Hamill, Wright and Nelson inquiries are expected to cost a combined total of £117 million. The total cost, to the end of January 2009, of all four public inquiries is £267 million, and 70 per cent. of those costs relate to the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

Does the Secretary of State realise that over a quarter of a billion pounds has been spent on the inquiry? When will the time come when the money is spent on investing in a better future for Northern Ireland, rather than on the past?

With huge respect to the hon. Gentleman, I realise that the inquiry cost that much. That is why I have just reported that the total cost was a quarter of a billion pounds. He is right, though, to draw the attention of the House to the very high cost of public inquiries. I am pleased to report to him not only that we are trying to do our best to drive down the cost of inquiries, but that together with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, we are looking at ways of producing better public value from public inquiries.

I listened with great care to what the Secretary of State had to say. Does he not think that it is time to put the past behind us, stop frittering away money on matters that happened 25 years ago, and spend that money on getting people back into employment in Northern Ireland, not on worrying about the past?

Let me commend to the hon. Gentleman the report of Eames and Bradley, which clearly addresses many of the issues that he raises. I caution him on one point: in dealing with the loss of life in Northern Ireland—nearly 4,000 people lost their lives in the course of the troubles—we must all be very careful about describing investigations into the past as “frittering away” public money.

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 March. (260223)

I have been asked to reply.

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the families and friends of the servicemen killed in Afghanistan in the past week. They were Corporal Tom Gaden, Lance Corporal Paul Upton and Rifleman Jamie Gunn of 1st Battalion the Rifles, and Marine Michael Laski of 45 Commando, who died last week following injuries sustained in Afghanistan. We owe them, and all who have lost their lives, our gratitude for their service. They are dedicated people, fighting in our interests for a safer world. They will not be forgotten.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the United States. Yesterday he had talks with President Obama, and today he will address the United States Congress.

In a survey published last week, 74 per cent. of parents said that they were very concerned about the increasing violence in video games. Given the increasing availability on the internet of games that exhibit scenes of graphic and gratuitous violence, when do the Government propose to implement the Byron report in full? This is not about censorship; it is about protecting our children.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his long-standing campaign on the issue. We need to make sure that we have tough classifications that are properly enforced. We need to make sure that parents have the information that they need. We need to make sure that the industry plays its part. The Government will take action on all those fronts.

May I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to Corporal Tom Gaden, Lance Corporal Paul Upton, Rifleman Jamie Gunn and Marine Michael Laski, all of whom, as she said, have given their lives in the past week in service to their country in Afghanistan? I also want to express our horror at the attack yesterday on the Sri Lankan cricket team, and join in sending our thoughts and condolences to the families of those killed and injured in that outrage. Thinking of all those people, will she agree that if there is to be any further increase in British troop levels in Afghanistan, it must be accompanied not only by clear and achievable objectives and the tackling of corruption in Afghanistan, but by a commitment from the Government to a proportionate increase in the number of helicopters and armoured vehicles, which are essential if our forces are to do their job?

Of course we agree that our troops should have all the logistical support that they need when they are in the field.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising what happened in Pakistan, and I fully support what he said. This terrible attack is a tragedy for Pakistan and we strongly condemn it. It was an attempt to destabilise democracy in Pakistan and it cannot be allowed to succeed. Our thoughts are with the families of the Pakistani police officers who died and with the Sri Lankan cricketers. The Foreign Secretary has written to the Presidents of Pakistan and Sri Lanka and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has conveyed his condolences. The UK is working closely with Pakistan and the international community to combat the threat from terrorism and violent extremism, which threatens not only the security of the region but the rest of the world.

We obviously agree about Pakistan, and we will hold the Government to their commitment on the necessary equipment for our forces in Afghanistan.

On the economy and domestic matters, we have been pressing for several months now for action to get credit moving from the banks to businesses and, in January, the Government finally announced a type of loan guarantee scheme, the working capital scheme, saying that it would help businesses now. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that it is not yet operational and that not a single loan has so far been guaranteed under the scheme?

The provisions under that scheme are being finalised, but I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to convey the idea that there is not real help available to businesses now. There is. Businesses with cash-flow problems can apply to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to defer their tax payments, and 72,000 businesses throughout the country have been able to do that. Businesses have been helped with their cash flow by making sure that the Government and Government agencies pay their bills on time, and they are doing that. Businesses are also helped by the extra money being put into the economy with the VAT cut, the extra help to pensioners and tax credits. Businesses are also helped by public investment: capital investment in building schools, hospitals and children’s centres, which the right hon. Gentleman would cut.

The right hon. and learned Lady may wish to get off the subject of the working capital scheme, but this was the Government’s flagship scheme for getting credit moving in the economy, which is what so many of us called for. The Prime Minister said on 14 January that the scheme would give real help for business now. The Government promised that it would become operational by 1 March. It is now 4 March and it is not remotely operational. It seems that they applied to Brussels for state aid clearance only last week. Hundreds of businesses are going under and tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs. She is holding a summit on the recession in Downing street today. While she is in charge and the Prime Minister is out of the country, will she undertake to look at this with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and do everything possible to speed up the implementation of this now long-delayed scheme?

This scheme will come into effect. We have taken a number of measures to get lending going again in the economy, nearly all of which the Conservative party has opposed. We have taken action to recapitalise the banks. We have taken action—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Hands, why do you not allow the Leader of the House to answer the question that she has been asked? It is unfair to shout.

We have taken action to save the banks from total collapse, action that the Conservatives opposed, and they would have allowed the banks to collapse. We are taking action now to require the banks to increase their lending, and that is why we have an agreement with Northern Rock for £14 billion extra to be lent into the housing market and £25 billion extra to be lent to small businesses. We have been taking the action, all of which the Conservatives have opposed, and we have been getting real help to businesses. The right hon. Gentleman can say all he likes about one particular measure, but while we take a range of measures, they would do nothing.

I am not talking only about one particular measure. Not only is the working capital scheme, announced in January, not operational now in March, but the jobs recruitment scheme, announced in January, has now been delayed until April; the mortgage support scheme, announced in December, has not even been worked out yet; the guarantee scheme for asset-backed securities is not starting until April; and the Lloyds bank deal, meant to be announced on Friday, has also been delayed. I am not talking about one measure, but about the failure to implement right across the Government’s economic policy.

Why does the Leader of the House not step in? When Chamberlain lost his party’s confidence, Churchill stepped forward; when Eden crossed the Atlantic, exhausted, Supermac came forward. This could be her moment. While the Prime Minister is away, will she step in and make sure that these schemes, on which so much economic confidence depends, are actually implemented now?

The right hon. Gentleman has raised the very important question of mortgage support. People are worried; they fear that if they lose their job, they will lose their home. I remind the House that we have given help to people who fear that they might lose their homes. Instead of having to wait 39 weeks, people who become unemployed will get help with the interest payments on their mortgages at 13 weeks, and an extra amount will be allowed. For people who lose their jobs, we have put extra investment into the jobcentres, and the private organisations too, which help people get retrained and back into work.

As far as the courts are concerned, every single county court now has a help desk to protect people who face repossession, and the building societies and banks have agreed that they will not take repossession action until at least three months of arrears have accumulated. Yes, we are working to ensure that if income falls in a household, there will be a moratorium for up to two years for interest payments. We are working on that, and we look forward to bringing it forward. While the right hon. Gentleman focuses on political gossip, we focus on fighting for Britain’s future.

The right hon. and learned Lady should not describe her leadership campaign as “political gossip”; that is not the way to go about winning the leadership of her party. [Interruption.] Yes, I do know about that. I am only a deputy now, but at least I am a loyal one.

If the right hon. and learned Lady will not step in and secure the implementation of all the schemes that I have mentioned, will she step in on the other matter vital to economic confidence—the recognition of past mistakes? She has been overruled, we understand, on Royal Mail, and she has been hung out to dry by the rest of the Cabinet on the Goodwin pension. But she has the opportunity to speak for the Prime Minister’s Cabinet colleagues, urging him to say sorry and move on. In the disagreement between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, whose side is she on, and will she advise the Prime Minister to say sorry for past mistakes?

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that when it comes to financial services, yes, we should all learn lessons and take action on the basis of that. Lessons need to be learned not only by the Government but also by the regulators and the financial services industry itself, and action needs to be taken. And we will take action on regulation, remuneration and corporate governance.

But as well as making sure that we have the right regulation system in this country, we have to recognise that whatever the system of regulation in one single country, we have to work together to make sure that the global financial system is properly regulated, because this has been a global financial crisis. So we will learn the lessons and we will take action.

But it is not just for us to learn lessons; the Opposition, too, have lessons to learn. When they were in government, there was no golden age of regulation: people lost a great deal in the collapse of BCCI and through the mis-selling of pensions. When we brought forward statutory regulation, they fought us tooth and nail, and all the way; and even as the credit crunch began to bite, they called for the total deregulation of the mortgage market.

As far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the right hon. and learned Lady speak.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to learn lessons, let me remind him of what he said when he was Leader of the Opposition:

“As Prime Minister, I will make deregulation one of my top priorities.”

He went on:

“I will drive regulation from the centre. And I will promote Ministers not on the basis of whether they regulate enough, but on the basis of how much they deregulate”.

So yes, we have lessons to learn, but we will learn no lessons from him.

Mr. Speaker, you would never think the Leader of the House was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, who named a whole Department after deregulation and regulatory reform; you would never think she was speaking on behalf of a Prime Minister who said yesterday that he had nothing to apologise for. Is it not now the case that we have Cabinet Ministers manoeuvring for the leadership while the Prime Minister is abroad, and a Government who no longer command the confidence of the people of this country; and is it not clearer than ever that the people who got us into this mess cannot be the people to get us out of it?

It is sad but predictable that the right hon. Gentleman should focus on political gossip. Our focus under the Prime Minister will be on the real concerns, real worries and real anxieties of people in this country. We will get on and build the new schools, new hospitals and new children’s centres that the Opposition would stop; and we will help business whereas they would do nothing. I am happy to leave the political gossip to him; we are getting on with fighting for the future of this country.

Some 34,000 families in my constituency are languishing on the council’s housing waiting list. They earn, on average, less than £24,000 per year, yet the Mayor of London has decided to decrease the numbers of homes for rent built in the capital by 10 per cent. Failing to deal with the snow was one thing, but blatantly ignoring the needs of my constituents and tens of thousands of other Londoners is another. Can she—will she—intervene?

I know that my hon. Friend and her hon. Friends will stand up for all those people in London who need housing and need it now. While Boris Johnson, the Mayor, does not recognise their concerns, I know that they have, in my hon. Friend, a champion on housing.

May I add my condolences to the families of Marine Laski, Rifleman Gunn, Lance Corporal Upton and Corporal Gaden, who all died serving their country on 25 February; and also to the victims of the Sri Lankan atrocity.

As the Leader of the House is a former pensions Minister and Law Officer and, I believe, a trained solicitor, she is exceptionally well placed to understand pensions law. Instead of the rather eccentric proposal for a “Harriet’s law” to stop Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension, would it not be more sensible for the Government to use existing legislation under which pensions can be forfeited in cases of employee negligence, which is surely the case with Sir Fred Goodwin, Adam Applegarth of Northern Rock and the others who bankrupted their banks?

Perhaps I can update the House on this matter. The Government have asked United Kingdom Financial Investments to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the contract for Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension, including the extent to which it was discretionary and including whether or not the people who took the decision had all the facts on which they could take it. That, too, bears on the enforceability of the contract. We are absolutely clear that it is not acceptable and we are taking all steps to challenge the enforceability of the contract.

I think that the right hon. and learned Lady is missing the point. The issue is not whether the pension is £400,000 or £700,000; the issue is why it is being paid at all. Is this not part of a much bigger issue? There is growing anger in what she calls the court of public opinion not just about the pension and remuneration of those who are now public sector employees, but about other public sector fat cats, including senior civil servants and, dare I say it, Ministers, and their very lavish and generous pensions. Does she recognise that anger, and what is she proposing to do about it?

I think that we do recognise that concern. In particular, there is concern about the question of remuneration in the financial services industry because it has been part of encouraging short-termism and risk-taking. As well as looking at the contractual basis of Sir Fred’s pension, we have also asked the Financial Services Authority and the Walker commission to look at how we tackle and improve the remuneration regime as part of corporate governance.

When it comes to the banks squandering their customers’ money, there is one thing that perhaps I ought to add. I discovered that it was not only Sir Fred who was getting money off RBS; it was also the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who got £30,000 off the Royal Bank of Scotland, it turns out, for just two after-dinner speeches.

Pay it back!

Order. [Interruption.] Order. You must be quiet—you cannot shout across the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not say, “Pay it back”. What I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend is that in 1965, a piece of legislation was brought in by the Labour Government covering statutory redundancy pay. That has been eroded over many, many years. Will my right hon. and learned Friend support my private Member’s Bill on 13 March that would ensure that the Government will look at the matter again, and ensure that there is a better deal for statutory redundancy pay? Will she ensure that the Government will back that private Member’s Bill?

We want to do everything that we can to support people who, through no fault of their own, lose their work. I know that that private Member’s Bill is coming forward; the Minister will respond on that occasion and give his response to those important proposals.

Q2. In addition to the list that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) gave to the Leader of the House of schemes to assist business that are not operating, may I add one more? It is the scheme to introduce help for those without trade credit insurance, promised by the industry Minister when the Government announced their help package for the motor industry. Thousands of companies around the country, both large and small, are finding trading extremely difficult without this trade credit insurance. When will the Government announce the details of that scheme? (260224)

I agree that that scheme is important. We have to do everything that we can to help manufacturing—in particular, through the automotive assistance scheme. In addition, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that businesses in his constituency benefit from public capital investment. I hope that he will agree with us that the Opposition should not oppose capital investment in his constituency. I hope that he will support the ability for businesses in his constituency to defer their tax payments. Opposition Members have a choice: they can either say to their constituents that there is no help and that nothing can be done, and wring their hands, or they can work to support businesses and bring schemes forward.

At this very moment, in west Hendon mosque in my constituency, funeral prayers are being held for my constituent, 19-year-old university student Hassan Kul Hawadleh—an innocent victim of a brutal knife attack, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, merely filling up at a petrol station. Rather than attend his funeral, his family asked me to come to the House today to ask my right hon. and learned Friend this: what more can be done to redouble our efforts against knife crime to prevent such pointless tragedies occurring again in the future, and to support families such as theirs in their bereavement?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Metropolitan police, local authorities, schools, youth centres and community organisations across London are working together to tackle the menace of knife crime. While crime generally has gone down, there is a problem of knife crime that persists, which is why we have strengthened the law to ensure that there is a greater possibility of searches and that there are tougher penalties. But today, we share with my hon. Friend the grief about his constituent, and we send our condolence to the bereaved family.

Q3. Will the deputy Prime Minister confirm that the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail stems directly from European Union postal legislation, which forced Royal Mail to divest itself of its most profitable business, thereby handing—it over lock, stock and barrel to European competitors? What sense is there in that? (260226)

The real reason, and the basis on which we are bringing forward the Postal Services Bill, is the analysis in the Hooper report, which we commissioned as long ago as December 2007. It made it clear that we need to take action to put Royal Mail, which, as the Prime Minister has said, is part of the fabric of our society, on a firm footing for the future. That means that we have to ensure that the pension liabilities are met. We have to ensure that the unfair regulation is tackled. We have to ensure that there is legislative underpinning of universal postal services, and also that we get into the organisation—so that, as well as meeting its pension liabilities, it can also modernise—considerable public capital investment but also private capital investment. When we bring forward that Bill to support the future of Royal Mail, I hope that the hon. Lady and all other hon. Members will support it.

Q4. I am delighted that the Government have brought forward £900 million of capital funding for schools. Shockingly, however, the Conservative-led Brighton and Hove city council failed to take advantage of the £9 million available locally, despite admitting that there are not enough places for my local children. What advice does my right hon. and learned Friend have for councils that could not get it together in time to take advantage of our Government’s funding? (260227)

There is no excuse for my hon. Friend’s council not to step forward to ensure that it can take advantage of the funds that have been made available to improve still further the education prospects of children in her constituency. I hope that she will be able to work with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that, despite the lagging behind of her local council, it will get on and deliver for children in her constituency.

Can the Leader of the House please confirm who it was that nominated Sir Fred Goodwin for a knighthood and, crucially, why?

I believe that Sir Fred was nominated for a knighthood because of his services to the Prince’s Trust. I understand that it was not in recognition of his services to banking.

Q5. Last week, we laid the first bricks in the £4 million extension to Rainbows children’s hospice, which is in my constituency but serves the whole east midlands. We still need another £1 million, plus £2.5 million each year to keep the hospice running. When are the Government finally going to act to ensure that children’s hospices do not rely for 95 per cent. of their funding on local residents and fundraisers, and finally get them to parity with adult hospices, for which about 40 per cent. of the funding comes from the public purse? (260228)

I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those in the NHS, both in hospital care and in the community, who help with palliative and end-of-life services, but I would also like to pay a very big tribute to the hospice movement, the voluntary movement that has spearheaded new ways to care for people at the end of their lives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made that a priority, investing £30 million extra for palliative and end-of-life care and announcing additional support for all hospices and hospice home services for children up to the age of five. There is a great deal of progress under way, and it is very important indeed.

Q6. The right hon. and learned Lady will be aware that electronic identification of sheep will become mandatory for all animals born after 31 December this year. Does she share the view of the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the cost of complying with those rules outweighs the benefits? Does she recognise that those costs may well force many thousands of British farms out of the industry, and will she urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to apply whatever pressure it can to the EU to drop this ridiculous and unnecessary legislation? (260229)

I know that identification of sheep is very important as part of infection control. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a serious issue. Therefore, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him on the issue.

Q7. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, contrary to what was said by the quasi-deputy leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), we have in fact already received the agreement of the Commission for the £2.3 billion of aid for the motor industry and we expect to have clearance for the £20 billion working capital package this month? That said, will she take it from me that now is the time, when we have those permissions and the schemes in place, for us to get cracking and get the money out to the companies that deserve and merit it? Will she also have a word with my very good friend in another place, congratulating him on what he has done, but telling him that he has got to get cracking? (260230)

My hon. Friend makes some very important points. I would have liked to give those points as my answer to a previous question, but I would also like to tell the House that the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill, which will be introduced in the House today, will facilitate an extra £16 billion, to be directly available. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome that Bill being introduced to the House today.