1. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s spending through the UN Development Programme in Afghanistan. (274658)

Given that the question relates to Afghanistan, may I begin by expressing—on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House—my condolences to the family of the brave officer of the Welsh Guards who passed away today as a result of injuries sustained in Helmand? He is the fifth UK serviceman to have given their life in Afghanistan this month, and they are all in our thoughts and prayers.

The UNDP is an important partner for the Department for International Development in Afghanistan, providing expertise in areas such as voter registration and support for the democratic elections. The Department’s funding has helped to ensure the success of the voter registration process. It also helped to launch the Afghanistan national development strategy, which unites the Governments of Afghanistan and the UK, and other partner Governments, behind a common vision to help to build a new Afghanistan.

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, and I am sure that all Opposition Members join him in passing on our condolences to the family of that brave soldier. My local regiment, 1st Battalion the Rifles, lost seven men in Afghanistan on their recent tour of duty. When I visited the battalion, I saw for myself their dedication and commitment to rebuilding that country. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that our international development efforts and those of our NATO partners match the dedication and commitment shown to Afghanistan by members of our armed forces?

I am unyielding in my admiration for our armed forces, having had, like the hon. Gentleman, the great privilege of seeing for myself the extraordinary sacrifices that they make, and the professionalism and dedication that they bring to their task. Frankly, the international community could have done a better job over recent years, and we are working tirelessly with partners in the international coalition to ensure that we strengthen the degree of co-ordination that is necessary if the aid operation is to be as effective as it should be. For example, we spend a significant proportion of our money with the Government of Afghanistan, recognising the challenges that that poses, but also the potential benefits. We also spend a significant proportion of our funding in country. Regrettably, that is not the case for all our principal partners.

I welcome the Department’s publication of the new country plan for Afghanistan, and the Government’s ongoing commitment to providing aid to the Afghan people, but will my right hon. Friend say what his Department is doing to ensure greater co-ordination of the international aid effort in Afghanistan?

I have met Kai Eide of the United Nations, and have discussed the matter with our American counterparts. We account for a significant contribution to the international effort, and we use whatever forums are available to us to argue that where best practice is established by any country, it should be replicated by other countries. We are, of course, working closely with the Government of Afghanistan, who also have a heavy responsibility. I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is also a subject of conversation between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States.

The Secretary of State rightly paid tribute to the efforts of the British forces in Afghanistan, but stability is crucial to successful development there. What discussions has he had with the American authorities on how their new military stance will be used to reduce civilian casualties, and so ensure a more stable environment in which to deliver development?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, has announced a change of command in recent days. I was not privy to the discussions in the Pentagon and the Department of Defence, but I am confident that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister discuss those issues at every appropriate opportunity. They discuss both the significance of the regional response—there is recognition now of the significance of Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan, to security in Afghanistan—and the need to take forward a genuinely comprehensive approach that involves political reconciliation with those who are willing to be part of the democratic process, genuine development work, and the necessary element of force in security.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the energy and hard work that he puts into ensuring that development cash gets to where it is needed, but how confident is he on the issue of corruption among officials in Afghanistan, and about the commitment by President Karzai’s Government to do something about it, to ensure that money gets to where it is needed most?

Let me return the compliment by paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend during his service in the Ministry of Defence. I know that he had a tireless commitment to the interests and welfare of our troops, and I pay tribute to that. Only in recent weeks, I had the opportunity to meet the new Minister of Finance in Afghanistan, and the subject—including the terms of the assurances that he could offer and the work that he was determined to take forward—was at the top of the agenda. I was heartened by the response that he offered me, but clearly we will need to keep working on the issue, although principal responsibility rests with the Government of Afghanistan.

I join the Secretary of State in sending our condolences to the friends and family of the Welsh Guards officer who died in Selly Oak this morning.

The Secretary of State will know that the National Audit Office has criticised his Department for handing over £20 million of taxpayers’ money to the Afghan Counter-narcotics trust fund, which the UNDP was too inexperienced to manage effectively. Was DFID aware of the serious concerns about the competence of the UNDP when it handed over that money?

It is for exactly those reasons that we withdrew support to the underperforming counter-narcotics trust fund as soon as we became aware of the scale of the challenge that was faced in the delivery of a very difficult programme in a very difficult environment. It is right to recognise that that is a challenging environment and to be subject to the scrutiny of the National Audit Office, and where evidence was brought to our attention, action was taken.

So can the Secretary of State tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that the extra £14 million that he had just signed off for the UNDP in Afghanistan is subject to proper, independent, effective impact evaluation so that British taxpayers know they are getting value for money, and British troops know their bravery is reinforced by an effective and successful aid effort?

On the evaluation of the UNDP, an internal evaluation unit has recently been established which reviewed the work of the UNDP. It concluded that many of the UNDP’s programmes are effective and delivering, particularly in the areas of public administration and support for democratic institutions, but the hon. Gentleman is correct in recognising that there needs to be substantive progress from the UNDP in certain areas. The next opportunity for us to raise those concerns, which we will raise, will be at the UNDP board later this month. That is an undertaking that I give to the House.

I, too, send the condolences of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the family of the solider who died this morning, and remember those who have given their lives in Afghanistan. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the bravery, professionalism and dedication of all our armed forces in Afghanistan, and also to the members of his Department who work in incredibly difficult circumstances on our collective behalf.

Two weeks ago the Prime Minister set out a welcome new joint security strategy that linked Afghanistan and Pakistan. Separately, the Afghanistan stabilisation fund has been pooled with the conflict prevention fund for south Asia, which has a broader remit, including crisis areas such as Sri Lanka. Can the Secretary of State share with the House how the new Afghanistan-Pakistan joint focus will be helped by these new broader arrangements?

Let me thank the hon. Gentleman both for his remarks about the officials of the Department, who do outstanding work, and for the tribute that he paid on behalf of the whole House to the service and heroism of our service personnel. On the joint approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan, he is right to say that there is a fundamental recognition that Pakistan needs to be the beginning, not the end, of the conversation in relation to Afghanistan. That is why we have worked so closely with the American Administration in recent weeks to ensure that there is a genuinely common approach to the issue, why I will take the opportunity this week to meet President Zardari of Pakistan, and why it is not coincidental that we published our Afghan country plan simultaneously with the Prime Minister making a statement to the House on the regional response. Whether it be through our programme in Pakistan, our programme in Afghanistan or the close joint working that is now established with both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a genuinely co-ordinated approach.

2. What steps he has taken to increase the delivery of humanitarian aid throughout Burma. (274659)

In March the Government decided to provide an additional £20 million to Burma over two years. We will continue to address cyclone recovery needs in the Irrawaddy delta, as well as expanding our programme across the rest of the country, and we will also increase our aid to Burmese refugees in Thailand.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that illuminating reply. As he will know, the International Development Committee’s 2007 report on assistance to internally displaced people and refugees on the Thai-Burma border recommended that DFID support cross-border aid into eastern Burma, in particular for the Karen people. Will the Minister now pledge to act on that recommendation?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited some of the camps to which he refers. He may also be aware that we have increased our funding to the Thailand Burma Border Consortium by some 10 per cent. this year, on top of an additional 30 per cent. last year. We have also increased our funding to other organisations that work with Burmese refugees—some £1.8 million over the next three years—so we have continued to follow through on the spirit of the recommendations of that Select Committee inquiry.

I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment on aid to Burma and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who has tirelessly campaigned on behalf of the Burmese people. I support the hon. Gentleman’s question, because, although I welcome the money that is going to Burma, given the difficulty of the situation there must be a resolution in respect of the thousands of people who have been marooned for months and years on the border. That situation cannot be left to the Thai Government. Could we take more action internationally, in terms of humanitarian support and from without to resolve the situation in the longer term?

My right hon. Friend alludes to a much wider problem with Burma: the basic lack of civil and human rights in that country and the need for major reform by the Burmese authorities. We want to see, first off, the release of all political prisoners in Burma, starting with Aung San Suu Kyi. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary continue to raise that issue—the need for reform, starting with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi—at every opportunity. Most recently, we used the G20 summit to continue to press that point with a number of key partners.

In Burma, Sudan, Darfur, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka, we are seeing the continued shrinking of humanitarian space. DFID and other agencies are having to work around de jure Governments, not in partnership with them. Is it not time that the United Nations Security Council did more to make a reality of the theoretical concept of the responsibility to protect?

The hon. Gentleman raises a significant issue—that of humanitarian space and ensuring that humanitarian organisations such as the Red Cross, and many other non-governmental organisations, have the opportunity to continue to provide humanitarian support to people in desperate situations as a result of conflicts and other disasters. One thing that the Department continues to do is to work extremely closely with the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance, the key UN body that leads on these issues. We are working with OCHA and other partners on how we can get a better international humanitarian system precisely to help on the delivery of aid, and to try to achieve the humanitarian space that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says we must continue to champion.

3. What his latest assessment is of the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. (274660)

There has been a modest improvement in the humanitarian situation. The cholera epidemic is under control and there are signs of an improved harvest this year. However, basic health and other welfare services have broken down after years of neglect. Consequently, Zimbabwe faces ongoing humanitarian challenges.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Obviously, all Members will be aware of the lack of political and judicial reform in Zimbabwe, but will the Minister confirm that he has received a communication from the Elders, urging the UK to offer Humanitarian Plus funds to Zimbabwe? Humanitarian Plus differs from long-term financial assistance, which will be linked to reform, and would allow immediate rehabilitation of the water and sanitation infrastructure in Zimbabwe.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the important contribution that the Elders are making to securing progress in Zimbabwe. We recently announced £15 million to strengthen health system support, improve sanitation and further strengthen food security, but we make it very clear that, on the pace of reform, there are certain non-negotiables. We make that clear in our conversations with the new Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, whom my right hon. Friends the International Development Secretary and the Foreign Secretary met recently. The United Kingdom provides humanitarian and Humanitarian Plus support, but we still await further improvement in terms of the necessary reforms.

Unfortunately, Zimbabwe has been put on the back burner again, because other issues are dominating Parliament and international affairs. Does the Minister not agree that one of the most helpful actions that the Government could take would be for the Secretary of State for International Development to visit Zimbabwe and meet the Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, to give that very courageous man the credibility and support that he deserves? He seeks to lead his country out of poverty and deprivation.

Of course, it is not for me to arrange my right hon. Friend’s travel itinerary. However, my serious response is that he recently met the Finance Minister, in whom we have a lot of confidence, and he has also met the Prime Minister in the past. My noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown, the Minister for Africa, was at the inauguration of the new President of South Africa and recently met Morgan Tsvangirai and the new Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe. There is constant engagement and dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe. We are clear about the support that we stand ready to provide and we have announced the resources that I mentioned in my earlier response. However, there can be no slacking in the message about the importance of political and economic as well as human rights reform. We remain concerned that, for example, political prisoners have recently been returned to prison. In those circumstances, we need to send strong messages about the pace of reform.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating my constituent, Richard Pantlin, who recently cycled round Zimbabwe, raising funds for an orphanage there? Does he share my constituent’s conclusion that we need to find ways of increasing humanitarian aid and support for the people of Zimbabwe, without strengthening ZANU-PF?

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the contribution of individuals, which demonstrates that no way is Zimbabwe on the back burner in respect of how the British people feel about our relationship with that country or in Department for International Development staff’s excellent work on the front line. My right hon. Friend is right to say that, as a result of our support, 7 million people were fed in March who would not otherwise have been fed; the cholera outbreak has been brought under control; and we are moving towards more support for Humanitarian Plus. Equally, we expect the Zimbabwean Government to fulfil the obligations they have entered into with the international community on a clear and transparent reform agenda.

Given the non-negotiables—quite right, too—may I endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and ask the Under-Secretary to continue to help in the humanitarian way the Government are rightly doing? What grounds for optimism does he have in the light of Morgan Tsvangirai’s extraordinary courage and achievements?

The optimism results from the changes that the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister and other reformers in the Zimbabwean Government make. Their optimism gives us hope. However, we also know that forces still exist in the Government who do not embrace the reform agenda, and we need them to do that. That is why it is important to send a message of solidarity and support, and make resources available to back the Prime Minister and the reform programme, while also making it clear that there will be no normalisation of relationships with that country until the entire Government are focused on meeting the needs of the ordinary people of Zimbabwe and rebuilding the economy and the health and education systems.

In the midst of the turmoil in Zimbabwe, what assurance can my hon. Friend give the House about opportunities for children to get education? That will be the way in which the country can rebuild and give people real hope for the future.

My right hon. Friend raises an important issue. We know that many schools in Zimbabwe have not opened this year. Teachers are rightly demanding salaries in hard currency and poor Zimbabweans cannot go to schools that charge in US dollars. That emphasises the importance of the Government’s rebuilding the education system, starting with paying teachers properly so that they turn up to teach the children of Zimbabwe. The good news is that, through UNICEF, we have ensured, with United Kingdom support, that more than 100,000 orphans and vulnerable children remain in school. That would not have happened without UK investment.

I welcome the Minister’s indication that the cholera outbreak is under control, but what is his assessment of the situation in Zimbabwe in respect of HIV/AIDS, a problem that was callously and deliberately neglected by the Mugabe Administration?

Part of the extra support made available by us, both in the past and most recently, to strengthen health systems is about ensuring that the Zimbabwean health system has the capacity to tackle HIV/AIDS properly. We also want the new President in South Africa to remain committed to the new approach to HIV/AIDS there, which does not just affect attitudes in that country, but affects attitudes to how HIV/AIDS is tackled across the African continent. Our support for strengthening the health system means that we hope for a rapid improvement in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

4. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. (274661)

5. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in northern Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. (274662)

The humanitarian situation remains severe in the conflict area. The UN estimates that there are around 50,000 civilians trapped in an area of just 3 sq km. The International Committee of the Red Cross is the only humanitarian agency allowed access, and every humanitarian need in the area is unmet. For the 190,000 internally displaced persons in camps away from the conflict area, such as those that I visited two weeks ago, the conditions are best described as basic.

Yesterday’s Human Rights Watch report would appear to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that, contrary to their denials, Sri Lankan forces continue to bombard the Mullaittivu area, an action that has resulted in more than 100 deaths in the past few days, according to reports on the ground. Can the Minister say what representations the Government are making to the Sri Lankan authorities with a view to persuading them to cease the bombardment and allow humanitarian workers into that area, which is, after all, meant to be a no-fire zone?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and one that certainly featured in the conversations that I had with the Foreign Minister in Sri Lanka when I was there two weeks ago. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman’s exact request was also a feature of the conversation that I had with the Sri Lankan high commissioner just this morning.

The Minister will understand the sensitivity around the screening process for those seeking to enter refugee camps in Sri Lanka. I am sure he is aware of the concerns expressed by the UN Under-Secretary-General John Holmes about that process and, in particular, about allegations of possible pre-screening by the Sri Lankan army. Can the Minister assure me that Her Majesty’s Government are doing all in their power to ensure that the screening process is conducted both fairly and properly?

It is always good to agree with the hon. Gentleman, a near neighbour of mine. We raised the issue of the screening process in conversations that I had with John Holmes when we were in Sri Lanka together. We have called for an international presence to be there during the screening process to give it credibility and give the assurance that the Tamil population is looking for.

I thank the Minister for what he has done so far, including taking my call at 5 am on the current humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka when he was in Indonesia. The key is ensuring that the boat that is just off the coast of Sri Lanka can deliver the tonnes of aid that the Red Cross has already collected. What further steps can we take to ensure the safe passage of that food from the boat into the Tamil areas?

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s commitment on the issue, which his early morning phone call clearly demonstrated. The Red Cross was able to unload 25 tonnes of food into the conflict area by boat on Saturday. It was hoping to repeat the process yesterday, but was unable to do so because of fierce fighting in the area. We urge both the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to stop the fighting so that the Red Cross can continue its most valuable work.

Is it not now clear that there has been firing into a zone that is supposed to be for humanitarian protection? Is that not a war crime? What action will the Government be taking, with the rest of the international community, to put pressure on the Government of Sri Lanka to stop firing into hospitals, schools and civilian areas?

Not only have we called on the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE for a ceasefire in the area, but we have made it clear in a debate in this House that we are calling for an early investigation to see whether crimes have been committed against civilians, and that we consider it vital that alleged war crimes are properly investigated. We will be pursuing a mechanism for a transparent inquiry into that process.

I am sure that the whole House will have been shocked by the shelling of the Mullivaikal hospital and the consequent loss of life. What more can the Minister’s Department do to impress on the Sri Lankan Government that they should allow into the country all the aid—not just the food aid—that his Department allocates, and that they must ensure that it reaches those for whom it is intended?

I met the Sri Lankan high commissioner this morning to request not only greater international humanitarian access to the camps but United Nations access to the conflict zone, so that we can make a proper assessment of the needs in that area. I should like to pay tribute to the Red Cross worker who was killed yesterday in the conflict zone. He was a water technician who was working to try to save lives, not to prolong the conflict, and he has paid the ultimate price for doing that.

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 May. (274643)

Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will join in expressing our condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed on operations in Afghanistan in the last week. They were: Sergeant Benjamin Ross of the 3rd Regiment the Royal Military Police; Corporal Sean Binnie of the 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Black Watch; Rifleman Adrian Sheldon of the 2nd Battalion the Rifles; Corporal Kumar Pun of the 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles; and a soldier from the 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards, who died yesterday of wounds sustained in Afghanistan at the weekend.

I have been fortunate enough to witness at first hand the bravery, professionalism and dedication of our soldiers from every battalion fighting for us in Afghanistan. We are determined to ensure that we can be a force for good in helping the people of Afghanistan and protecting the security of people in Britain and the wider world. These men, and all those who have lost their lives in conflict, deserve our profound gratitude. Their service will never be forgotten.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

I associate myself—as, I am sure, does the whole House—with the condolences paid by my right hon. Friend to the families of the brave soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan.

The whole country is deeply concerned about MPs’ expenses, and public anger is surely heightened because of people’s own financial and economic circumstances. Laing O’Rourke, a major construction firm in my constituency, has just announced that it is taking on several hundred extra apprentices this year, but unemployment nationally remains extremely worrying. What can my right hon. Friend do to invest in skills and jobs to ensure that we are well placed when we come out of the recession? I am sure that he would agree that unemployment is never a price worth paying.

In answer to my hon. Friend’s first point, our responsibility is to create a system of MPs’ allowances that is transparent and will be seen by the country as wholly fair. We must prove ourselves worthy of the public’s trust. We must apologise for the mistakes that have been made. We must rectify all the errors that have happened, and we must reconstruct the system in a way that the public will see as building confidence in the political process. I believe that the steps that were taken last night by the Members’ Allowances Committee were the first important steps in dealing with this matter for the whole of the House together.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: any unemployment is a tragedy in any area of the country, and it is our duty to do everything we can to help those people who are unemployed. Where people are being taken on, there is help available. Where people are on short time, we are providing help through the working tax credit and through training allowances. For where people have become unemployed, we have announced today the details of a scheme under which, for all 18 to 24-year-olds who are unemployed and out of work, there will be an offer after a year of training or of work. I am grateful that social entrepreneurs, as well as charitable organisations, are already involved in the offer of work. We aim to provide 150,000 jobs as a result of the initiative that is being taken today.

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the officer from the Welsh Guards who died of his wounds at Selly Oak hospital, and to the four service men who were killed last Thursday: Corporal Kumar Pun of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, Corporal Sean Binnie of the Black Watch, Rifleman Adrian Sheldon of 2nd Battalion the Rifles, and Sergeant Ben Ross of the Royal Military Police. Such a tragic loss of life in a single day should remind us of all the bravery that all our service men and women show every day. They have all made sacrifices on behalf of our country, and we must never forget them.

Let me ask about the issue of MPs’ expenses. The first words that the Prime Minister said about them today concerned the need for transparency. Does he agree that one thing we could do pretty much right now is publish our expenses online the moment we put in a claim? Should that not happen online in real time? Does the Prime Minister agree that MPs from all parties should do that now?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Committee on Members’ Allowances is looking at the issue. I think it important for there to be a transparent system so that when a claim is reported to the Fees Office, the Fees Office can itself put it on the internet. That should be a responsibility of the system of the House, and I hope that it will be introduced as soon as possible.

I hope that every Member of the House, in considering this issue, will agree that if trust in politics dissipates or disappears, the whole political system cannot work properly. I think that we all have a duty now to ensure that the agreements that we reach and the independent reviews that are carried out are such that they can restore confidence in the system.

As for last night’s proposal from the Committee on Members’ Allowances, I think it important, as the Committee has suggested, for the receipts and payments of Members over the last four years to be scrutinised by a body that includes people who are completely independent of the political system. By doing that for all MPs over a period of four years, we can show the public that we have taken every necessary action to deal with any anomalies, to repair them, and at the same time to build the confidence in the political system that is necessary for the future. I believe that this is a matter in which all parties will want to be engaged, and it is important that we deal with it now.

Of course I agree with the Prime Minister that we should all support the Kelly commission and the work that it is doing, and yes, we should all support the idea of establishing a committee to look back over the last four years, but is there not a problem with this, and does it not show that we need to get on with things now? If we just ask a committee whether everyone has obeyed the rules, it will take a long time to investigate and will then, I think, find—surprise, surprise—that everyone has obeyed the rules. The issue is not so much about whether the rules were obeyed as about the rules themselves. How much needs to be paid back is not really a legal issue; it is a moral and an ethical issue, and it requires some political leadership to sort it out. Does the Prime Minister not understand that?

Yes, I do, and the leadership means leadership in the whole political system. We have a duty to look across the political system—all parties—to act together, as the Committee tried to do yesterday, and to reach an agreement.

The Committee’s proposals are extreme and radical. It will ask outsiders to look at receipts, expenses and payments over the last four years, and will then report on whether they were regular or irregular. That is dealing with the past. For the present, the Committee proposed an interim system, and I believe that it can command all-party support. However, the long-term changes will require the confidence of the public, which is why, as I have said before, I have always believed that we need an outside body—the Committee on Standards in Public Life—to report on what should be done. Its proposals must then be taken into account by the House.

If we are to make changes in the system, however, we need an outside body—a body carrying some confidence that it is acting completely impartially—that can report on the changes that we can make, and I believe that it should report as soon as possible. I believe that it is in the interests of everyone that we go beyond ordinary party politics, and that we make absolutely sure that what we do affects the whole House and all Members, and the way in which they behave.

I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s answer but I still think that there is going to be a problem with just saying, “Let’s go back and look at the claims people made under the rules”—[Interruption.] Members are shouting but that is again part of the problem in this House—let us be frank about it.

Let us see if that committee can do it. However, if we just look at the rules and whether people were complying with them, that does not go to the heart of the problem. It does not go to the heart of the anger that people feel. That is why Members of Parliament on both sides of the House decided to write out cheques and send money back, and I think that that is right.

Let me turn to another issue: reducing the cost of politics more generally. If we are frank, many of us know that the next issue we have to tackle is the communications allowance that was introduced only two years ago. It is worth £10,000 to every MP. Let us be honest: taxpayers are effectively paying out thousands of pounds so we can all tell our constituents what a wonderful job we are all doing. We have all done it; we all know the facts. Is not this a gigantic waste of money? Will the Prime Minister now get on with something I have suggested many times? Let us save some money—scrap the communications allowance now.

The first way we are going to save money is through the changes that were voted on in the House two weeks ago—changes that I and others put to the House—about how we can save money on the London allowance, how we can reduce the cost of the additional cost allowance and how we can get the receipts fully dealt with—even those below £25—and submitted. That is the first stage of reducing cost, and the costs of the system will fall.

I have to say something about the right hon. Gentleman’s point about rules as well. It is true in some cases that rules have not been properly obeyed and action has to be taken—I think that everyone will agree with that. It is also true that there is a looseness sometimes in the interpretation of the rules, or that the rules themselves are too loose. That is what the Committee on Standards in Public Life has to look at, but I hesitate to say that one or two Members of this House can get together and write the new rules on everything. We need independent scrutiny to assure the public that people can have confidence in the system.

As for the communications allowance, all allowances always have to be looked at. This, again, followed a vote of the House—a vote involving all Members of the House.

Let me ask the Prime Minister, in short order: how does he, in this current recession, when businesses are facing such difficult times and people are having to make such reductions in their own expenditure, justify the £10,000 communications allowance?

In this period, all members of the Government have frozen their salaries. I have myself refused to take the pension that may be given to any serving Prime Minister. I have refused the London allowance that is available to me. I think that all Members of the House have to look at what they can do in their own situations. As far as the communications allowance is concerned, it is open to the House to look at all these things, but a vote of the House took place. It is always open to Members to propose changing it.

The Prime Minister says that it is open to the House. That is so often his answer. What we want is some leadership to cut some of these costs. He seems to have such a tin ear to these issues. In an age where we are going to have to ask the public sector to do more for less, should we not start with ourselves? We have in the House of Commons 646—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak.

I am just making the point—[Interruption.]

Order. I have asked hon. Members to be quiet. I do not expect more noise.

The House of Commons has 646 MPs. We have one of the largest lower Houses in the western world—larger than in Spain, France, Germany and Italy. In fact, if we take the Lords and Commons together, we have more political representatives than any country other than China. Should we not reduce the cost of politics by asking the next Boundary Commission to reduce the size of the House of Commons?

Many of the countries that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about are federal systems that have not only central Parliaments but federal Parliaments. I do not know whether he is proposing that we make an instant judgment now to reduce the number of MPs by 50, 100 or 150. Those are matters that have to go before an independent commission and people have to look at the boundaries. On all these issues, I am trying to build a political consensus on change. I am trying to build a consensus across all—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must be heard as well.

I am trying to build a political consensus on change. It is unfortunate that we cannot today highlight those issues on which we agree that action needs to be taken immediately. That is the way forward for this House to restore trust in its affairs. We have got to deal immediately with the issues ahead of us. We have got to take the extreme action that I propose—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to support it—and, at the same time, we have got to reform the expenses system. I think that today is a time for us all to come together to make the changes that are necessary.

I must say to the Prime Minister that Spain and France are not federal systems, and they have much smaller Parliaments than we do. The Prime Minister says again that he wants to have an independent commission. I sometimes wonder whether—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak. [Interruption.] Order. Dr. Howells, please; the Leader of the Opposition must be able to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister needs an independent commission to work out whether to have tea or coffee in the morning. Whether by putting expenses online, by cutting the cost of politics by abolishing the communications allowance, or by making this place smaller and more efficient, is it not time to wake up and see what is going on in the country? Is it not time for us to see ourselves as the rest of the country sees us? Is it not time to stop the talking and the endless committees, and start showing some real leadership to deliver some real change? How can we bring about the change this country needs if we cannot change ourselves?

It is precisely because we have to change that these radical proposals are being put forward. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen today to divide on issues, instead of to concentrate on the issues on which we agree. I think everybody will agree that this is a problem of the political system that has got to be dealt with by all of us. If we are to restore confidence in politics, that means restoring confidence in all of politics, and it means all Members of Parliament being part of that process of restoring confidence. Leadership is about the whole of the political system responding to the changes that need to be made, and leadership is me saying to all the political parties that they have got to act immediately to change the system. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what is most important for politics today is to move forward with the changes on which we can agree and that are urgently necessary. Of course we should discuss other issues over a period of time, but we must discuss them in a way that is non-partisan so that we can reach proper agreement.

Many organisations support the Equality Bill: Age Concern, Carers UK and all the disability organisations. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when opposing the Bill on Monday, the Opposition could cite one organisation on their side: the Campaign Against Political Correctness? Will he assure the House that he will continue to support the views of Age Concern, Carers UK and the disability organisations and reject the views of those who oppose equality?

This is another issue on which it would be good to have political consensus. Discrimination on grounds of age or of being a carer is simply not acceptable in modern society. I hope that, despite the debates that have taken place in the last few days, we can reach an agreement on that, and I think we would be speaking for the whole country.

I would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the families and friends of the brave soldiers who lost their lives serving us and the people of Afghanistan in Helmand province: Sergeant Ben Ross, Corporal Sean Binnie, Rifleman Adrian Sheldon, the soldier who died in a hospital in Birmingham yesterday after being shot in Helmand at the weekend, and Corporal Kumar Pun, who it is worth remembering now adds his name to those of the more than 45,000 Gurkha solders who have died serving this country over the years.

I would like to return to the issue of MPs’ expenses. I suspect that many people are a little baffled by all the different proposed solutions, because none of them seems to deal with the biggest loophole of all: MPs making hundreds of thousands of pounds buying and selling properties funded by the taxpayer. Surely the only long-term solution is to get all us MPs out of the property game altogether.

I know that this is an issue on which the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly, and it is exactly the kind of issue that the Kelly committee will be looking at. Let him and others put their proposals to the committee and let us come back with a solution. I say to him that any solution that is put forward for the longer term will have to command more than the confidence of this House—it will have to command the confidence of the general public.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his reply, but I still think he is making this a little too complicated. A really simple principle is at stake: we are here to serve our constituents, not to make a fast buck on the property market. That is why I have always thought that we should do what they do in Scotland: simply end—stop—any taxpayer-funded mortgages altogether. Until the new rules are in place, we Liberal Democrat Members have committed ourselves to handing back to the taxpayer every pound of any gain made from the sale of second homes funded by the taxpayer. Will he commit—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the right hon. Gentleman speak.

Will the Prime Minister at least make that commitment?

I hope that people will also speak up for decent, hard-working Members of Parliament who are going about their duty in the ordinary way and who are not trying make any money out of being a Member of Parliament, but simply trying to serve the public. It is very important that we get some context in this debate. Where there are abuses, they must be sorted out. Where there are disagreements about future policy, I agree that recommendations should be made to the committee by MPs and by parties but, as I have said before, I do not believe that we will command the confidence of the public unless people outside this House believe that what we are doing is also right. This cannot be an issue for just Members to make long-term decisions upon.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal about houses, I know that capital gains tax has to be paid on these second homes. That is the first priority, and the other matters can be dealt with in representations to the committee.

My right hon. Friend will want to know that the people of Teesside were very pleased to receive his instant support following the news that the Corus steelworks could be closing. Will he support the campaign that is being led by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and other Teesside Members to help Corus and enable it to remain a significant part of employment on Teesside?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue that the whole House should be concerned about. Corus entered into a contract with four other steel and other manufacturing operators that was supposed to last until 2015. If that contract is broken, a high level of compensation will have to be paid. We are trying urgently to talk to the companies concerned, which range across four different countries, to make the case that it is important to keep the Teesside plant open and that it is counter-productive to close it in the current circumstances, and to see whether, as was previously the case, a buyer, as part of that consortium, is available to take over the plant. These are the issues that we are dealing with. In the meantime, the Minister for the North East of England and Jobcentre Plus are making their services available so that people are in no doubt that if there are to be redundancies, we are there to help people to get new jobs.

Q2. A recent report by the National Housing Federation suggests that more than 100,000 young people will leave the countryside in the next three years, not because they want to do so, but because of the lack of affordable housing. If they stayed, they would be the leaders of their community in the future and the basis of the local economy. This Government have never really understood rural problems, but will the Prime Minister agree to meet a delegation representing young people in the countryside to set out the problems and share some of the solutions? (274644)

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to go away with the feeling that we have done nothing on this issue; we are determined to help people to get housing and to give help for jobs in rural areas. Indeed, a member of his party was asked to report to us on policies that could be implemented to help people in this position. We will do what we can to help people to get jobs and we are discussing with housing contractors how we can move forward on housing. Some decisions actually relate to planning decisions made by local authorities. We will need the support of local authorities in these areas, but we are determined to do what we can by the rural population of this country.

Q3. Every year more than 100,000 children go missing in this country. Thankfully, most of them are found safe, but some of them are not. Over the next few days, events will be held all around the country to mark international missing children’s day. Will the Prime Minister meet me and members of the leading children’s charities to find out not only what is being done to protect those children, but what we need to do further? (274645)

My hon. Friend is right about the number of children who go missing. Last week we talked about lost children who become part of child trafficking near Heathrow. That is completely unacceptable, and I have asked the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to report on that specific instance immediately. In addition, we are working with local authorities to ensure the best care for vulnerable children who are identified by border agencies or at ports, and the immigration and citizenship Bill before Parliament will introduce a new legal duty. The Home Affairs Committee will publish a report tomorrow on some of these issues, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend and a delegation after that.

What is the Prime Minister’s response to the further report issued last week by the parliamentary ombudsman as a result of her concern about the Government’s failure to action her recommendations on behalf of Equitable Life pensioners?

As the hon. Lady knows, we are looking carefully at that report. We have set up an examination by a judge to consider the very matters in the report, and we will report back as soon as he finishes it.

Q4. Amid all the gloom this week are two good news stories. One is the minimum wage, which is 10 years old and still going strong. The second is that economic pundits—even the OECD—now concede that the sunny uplands are in sight after the slump. George Soros says that recovery is on its way. He knows all about money and slumps, because he was the man who took £2 billion from underneath the noses of two Tory grandees: Lord Lamont and the Leader of the Opposition. (274646)

I welcome my hon. Friend back for his first question after his recent illness. Things got really bad while he was away, and we are very pleased that he has come back. He is right about the importance of the minimum wage. We supported it in 1997 and we continue to support it. It has been raised this week and we have made it clear for the first time that tips should not be charged against it. We are determined to keep it, and I hope that all hon. Members will consider voting against the Bill on Friday whose intention is to undermine the minimum wage and kill it off in this country.

Will the Prime Minister set out what he is able to do in the next critical 48 hours to stop a further massacre taking place in Sri Lanka?

The House of Commons will debate the issue later this week. I am calling for three urgent actions, and I am making that clear in conversations with the President of Sri Lanka. Both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government must exercise the utmost restraint and avoid civilian casualties. All civilians must be allowed, as I have already requested, to leave the conflict zones, and the UN must have full access to civilians caught up in the conflict. We will play our part through our aid programme. The Foreign Secretary has been in New York to urge the UN to take further action and our special envoy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), has been in the region meeting partners and building up pressure for a full ceasefire. What is happening in Sri Lanka is having a devastating humanitarian impact, and we will make continuing efforts to avoid civilian casualties, taking whatever action we can to persuade the Sri Lankan Government of the need for restraint and an end to the violence.

Q5. In the last 18 months, Erewash credit union has saved local people £170,000 that would otherwise have gone to doorstep lenders in high interest rates. That reduces the misery experienced by people trapped in debt and releases extra money into the local economy. As my right hon. Friend knows, the Department for Work and Pensions growth fund backs credit unions. Will he assure me that that fund will remain the highest Government priority? (274647)

In the Budget we added an extra £18.5 million to help the credit funds. More than 100 credit unions have already benefited from that fund, and more than 150,000 people are being helped. I know that the credit union in my hon. Friend’s constituency is a shining example of what is possible, with 700 people obtaining affordable credit. It is making new investment to help people with housing, which is desperately needed in her area. I congratulate her credit union on doing a fantastic job. We want to support credit unions in every part of the country, with both more support and more legislative backing in future.

Please will the Prime Minister tell us whether the Government are in a position to support the long-awaited improvements to the heritage site at Stonehenge and to the roads, as well as the visitor centre that has been anticipated for so long?

I am pleased to announce that, in partnership with the Stonehenge programme board, we have been able to identify a suitable and affordable solution for a visitor centre. Stonehenge is one of the world’s key heritage sites and the hon. Gentleman is privileged to have it in his constituency. Today’s announcement marks the first step towards making the long-held aspirations that he and others have had for Stonehenge a reality. The site will be further enhanced by the closure of the A344, which at present takes traffic very close to the stones. Funding of up to £25 million will be provided through a range of public and private sources. We are determined to help the development of one of the great sites in the world.

Q6. At various times in our history we have had the Long Parliament, the Rump Parliament, the Good Parliament and the Addled Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are not careful we will finish up as the Moat Parliament or the Manure Parliament? Should we not say now that we will accept whatever the Kelly committee says? Will my right hon. Friend say that on behalf of the Government and invite the other party leaders to say it on behalf of their parties, too? (274648)

As my hon. Friend knows, I have said that I do not think, given what has happened in the past year or two, that the House can proceed on the basis of just Members of the House making a decision without seeking outside support and consulting outside bodies. I hope that we will receive a good report from the Kelly committee and that we and all parties will be able to support it.