May I invite the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming parliamentary business?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 4 May—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 5 May—Remaining stages of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.

Wednesday 6 May—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 7 May—A general debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee annual report 2007-08.

Friday 8 May—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 11 May will include:

Monday 11 May—Second Reading of the Equality Bill.

Tuesday 12 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Wednesday 13 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 14 May—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by general debate: subject to be announced.

Friday 15 May—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 7 and 14 May will be:

Thursday 7 May—A debate on meeting the Government’s commitments to children affected by HIV/Aids in developing countries.

Thursday 14 May—A debate on the report from the Health Committee entitled “NHS Next Stage Review”.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House on running the marathon on Sunday and, more to the point, completing it. He has asked for my cheque, but I think that the whole House will approve of his raising money for the Army Benevolent Fund.

In my first exchange in January with the right hon. and learned Lady in my role as shadow Leader of the House, I raised the Government’s apparent reluctance to debate the UK’s preparedness for a flu pandemic. As I said at the time, Conservative Members had been calling for such a debate for well over two years. Although we appreciate the Health Secretary’s willingness to update the House—he has done that twice this week—may we none the less have a full debate, perhaps on 14 May, as Members of Parliament should have an opportunity to discuss the matter more widely than the strict limitations of a statement permit?

Two reports have today been published on the problems in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. None the less, may we have a ministerial statement on those reports, because, in our view, they do not reduce in any way the need for an independent public inquiry?

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her willingness to listen to the House last week when we asked about the investigation into privilege in the wake of the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). What is the status of the two potential committees of inquiry that have been suggested, and when might she be able to give a statement to the House on the proposed way forward?

Yesterday, the House soundly defeated the Government’s policy on the Gurkhas. However, there is another group of people whom the Government treat with deep contempt: the policyholders of Equitable Life. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm what I have heard—that, a full three months after the Chief Secretary to the Treasury established an independent review into supposed ex gratia payments for those who have lost out from Equitable Life’s collapse, the man leading the investigation, Sir John Chadwick, has not yet been in contact with Equitable Life or any representatives of those affected? Does not that further underline the speciousness of the review and the Government’s intention to bury the issue? When will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers come to the House to give us a statement about their plans to compensate—I use that word deliberately; I mean “compensate”—policyholders, as the ombudsman demanded?

Will the right hon. and learned Lady also give us a statement on the status of the Government’s misguided policy on ID cards? On Tuesday, it was reported that a—inevitably unnamed—group of senior Cabinet Ministers were lobbying the Prime Minister to drop the scheme altogether. Later, the former Home Secretary who gave birth to the idea said that he favoured using biometric passports instead. After telling us for the past year—and even before that—that ID cards are essential for national security, the Government are clearly somewhat split on the issue. After this week’s U-turns on Titan prisons and national databases, perhaps the Prime Minister will return to YouTube and give us a U-turn on ID cards, too.

May we also have a debate on our relations with Poland, in which we could take the opportunity to congratulate the Polish Prime Minister on his forthright honesty and sage advice to our Prime Minister on the rigours of fiscal probity and economic management?

May I congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady on the publication of her leadership manifesto in the guise of the Equality Bill? I know that she is very proud of it, but can she perhaps explain to the House why she will not be entrusted with steering it through on Second Reading? Will she confirm that, in tune with the stardom that she seeks, when the Bill was launched at a press conference earlier this week, she was asked to sign copies of it, as though it were a celebrity photograph? In the spirit of our regular exchanges across the Floor of the House, rather than going on to eBay, may I please have one too?

The hon. Gentleman talked about swine flu, and I acknowledge that he has been asking for a debate about preparedness for flu since December last year. His suggestion that we select flu preparedness as the subject of either the topical debate or the general debate on 14 May is sensible. As he acknowledged, the Secretary of State for Health will come to the House as often as necessary, in order to be accountable to the House for the plans that have been made. However, as I am sure hon. Members will be aware, that is an issue not just for the Department of Health, but for the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and a range of other Departments. Local government is also involved and Cobra is meeting daily, joining work from across Departments and the agencies.

The hon. Gentleman asked about a ministerial statement on Stafford hospital. The Secretary of State for Health will make a statement. He wants to make an oral statement, because he knows that the House will want to hear from him personally and ask him questions. We have had to prioritise the swine flu statements, as we do not want to make too many statements on any one day. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State for Health will recognise that the Secretary of State wants to come to the House as early as possible to make that statement, so that he and other hon. Members can ask questions.

On the questions of privilege and the Speaker’s Committee and the request for a reference to the Standards and Privileges Committee, I need to be clear about the exact position of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats and about their preparedness to nominate their Members to sit on the Speaker’s Committee, which the House resolved to establish earlier this year. I shall have to check the state of play and perhaps discuss the terms of reference for a reference to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said about the inquiry into Equitable Life not yet having made any investigations is correct. However, I cannot give him a categorical answer on that, so I will discuss it with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and work out how best to communicate with him and all other hon. Members, whom I know are concerned about Equitable Life, in case what he has told the House is wrong and they need reassurance about that.

As for the policy on ID cards, it is important for foreign nationals to be able to have biometric ID cards. Removing any uncertainty about identity can allow visa sections all around the world to operate much more quickly. When the House was in recess, I spent two days visiting Ghana, where many of my constituents come from, and was taken through the process of taking biometric data. The people there say that they can now issue visas within two days to people who want to visit Britain, because they do not have to worry about what their identity is or make massively expensive checks—the biometric data are captured. That relates to biometric cards for foreign nationals. Hon. Members should also recognise that airport security is very important indeed; biometric identity cards are important for that, too. They are important and we should be pressing on with them.

I was pleased to hear that some Opposition Members welcome the Equality Bill. Although not all of them have been convinced, we will not give up hope and we hope to persuade them finally to enter the 21st century. The Bill was a manifesto commitment for the Government in 2001. I will introduce the Bill’s Second Reading debate on Monday 11 May, but the lead Minister will be the truly excellent and flawless Solicitor-General. I look forward to her dealing with all those who seek to take a different view of the Bill.

I am disappointed that there will be no Liberal Democrat Supply days in the next two weeks, as they seem to be going rather well at the moment. Following the historic win after yesterday’s debate, I should like genuinely to thank the Minister for Borders and Immigration for responding to my request and coming back to the House to make a statement yesterday evening. That was the right thing to do. May I ask the Leader of the House a specific question relating to that? The Minister made it clear that he would “publish”—his word—revised proposals for Gurkha settlement before the recess, but I do not think that publishing will be sufficient. The proposals need to be presented to the House, and Members must have an opportunity to express an opinion on the Government’s solution. I hope that we will have either a statement or a debate on that issue.

Today, the Metropolitan Police Authority is discussing the demonstrations associated with G20 and the police response to them. It is extraordinary that the House has had no opportunity to discuss those matters yet, either by means of a statement from the Home Secretary or of a debate. May we have an opportunity for such a discussion?

One of the changes in the machinery of government that the Prime Minister introduced when he became Prime Minister was to split the Education Department into two. The two Departments are now competing to see which can be the more incompetent. We have had the issues relating to college buildings, to sixth-form numbers and to SATs, and we have had the unseemly dispute with the former chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. May we have a debate on how we are running education in this country, and on why those two Departments have become so shambolic?

Pigs have been uppermost in our thoughts over the past couple of weeks, mainly because of pig flu. I welcome the Secretary of State for Health’s statement and his undertaking to keep the House updated, and the Leader of the House’s offer of a debate. That is exactly the right thing to do. However, there seems to be another contagion around the place, and I would call it pig’s ear syndrome. The Prime Minister seems to turn everything he touches into a pig’s ear at the moment. Whether it is the economy, the issue of the Gurkhas, Members’ allowances or even appearing on YouTube, he has not dealt with any of these issues with great competence. Perhaps what we need is a therapeutic debate—a cathartic debate—on the conduct and performance of the Prime Minister, so that Labour Members can have the opportunity to say in the Chamber what they are saying in the corridors and the Tea Room, and it is not desperately complimentary about the Prime Minister.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about our response to the result of the Opposition day debate. The Minister made it clear in his statement that we respect and accept the will of the House, and that further action will be taken, as announced yesterday. The House will be kept informed.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of official inquiries are under way into the policing of the G20 demonstrations. Hon. Members will no doubt tell me if I am wrong, but I think that the Home Affairs Select Committee has begun an inquiry.

Ministers from the Department for Children, Schools and Families answered questions on Monday, and we had Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills questions earlier today. Therefore, any questions about increasing the number of students staying on at school and taking A-levels, about the increasing number going into further and higher education, or about the guarantee of committing to education up to the age of 18 could have been put to Ministers this week. Furthermore, the Prime Minister answers questions every Wednesday.

rose—

Order. We have a statement on Sri Lanka, which the House will be anxious to hear, and the main business of the day appears to have attracted a certain amount of interest. I must keep a tight control over business questions today, so I appeal to hon. Members to co-operate by being extremely brief. I do not think it will be possible to call every Member who is seeking to catch my eye. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) will get us off to a good start.

Many hon. Members have experienced problems with unjustifiable service charges. I have a constituent who has experienced a service charge of £285 per week on a studio flat. Do not the Government need seriously to address the issue of service charges on such properties?

I agree that there can be big problems with service charges, particularly for those in former council flats that have been bought. I suggest that my hon. Friend raise the matter with the relevant Minister, who is in the Lords.

Following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on future strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will the Leader of the House try to secure a debate on some of the details that were not made plain, particularly the serious problems of the chain of command and its structure, which are causing real problems in Afghanistan? Without a resolution to that problem, there will be no success.

We have had a debate on Afghanistan and Pakistan since Christmas, but perhaps we should split our debates on 14 May between swine flu and Afghanistan and Pakistan. I do not want to give a running commentary on my thoughts, but that might be a sensible suggestion.

Three weeks ago, the High Court decided that four Rwandans accused of involvement in genocide could not be extradited to Rwanda to face justice. There is a gap in UK law between the War Crimes Act 1991 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001, so may we have an urgent debate, either in Government time or in Westminster Hall, to discuss plans to close the gap in the law and ensure that those who are accused of mass murder do not reside with impunity in our country?

I will ask the Justice Secretary and Home Secretary to discuss my hon. Friend’s point, and write to her to let her know their views.

Does the Leader of the House accept that a Member who is not called to speak on the Second Reading of a Bill or put on the Public Bill Committee can contribute to such an important debate only in the remaining stages or on Report? Will she assure the House that programming will be abolished for the Report stage of Bills?

No, I will not. Without programming, all the debate can be on the first part of the Bill, and subsequent issues do not get debated. Programming helps to ensure that all the different elements of a Bill are scrutinised on Report. That is why programme motions were so liberally used by the Conservative party when it was in government.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, as we have discussed the matter previously, of the important role of carers in our society. She is also aware of the great stress put on carers by looking after someone who is infirm, elderly or disabled—it is often so stressful that the carer’s own health suffers. Such caring is as stressful as looking after a child, yet child allowance is paid to parents regardless of their income as a matter of right. Carer’s allowance is paid only to certain categories of carers, can be cut off if earnings rise a few pence above £95, and is not paid to retired carers. May we have an early debate on carer’s allowance to come up with a fairer system for carers?

I will look for an opportunity to debate carers, which is an issue of growing concern. My hon. Friend might be able to choose the issue for a Westminster Hall debate. He will be interested to know that the Equality Bill includes provision to prevent people from being discriminated against because they are carers: for example, someone who applies for a promotion at work and is told, “Sorry, we know you are caring for your elderly mother, so you can’t have promotion because we don’t think you are committed to work.” We must do everything possible to support carers and to enable them to work as well as care, if that is what they want to do. The number of over-85s in this country is set to double over the next two decades, so family care is a central issue.

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on nitrate-vulnerable zones. Is she aware that the Environment Agency believes that 6 per cent. of all farmland has been wrongly designated, but that farmers are still expected to invest tens of thousands of pounds on additional slurry storage that may prove unnecessary?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has sought the opportunity to ask about that point in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. I suggest that he consider that, or seek a Westminster Hall debate.

It is four years since the high hedges legislation was put on the statute book. May we have a ministerial statement on departmental monitoring of the legislation, and what advice is being given to local authorities to make it more effective?

I will bring that matter to Ministers’ attention, and they will consider the best way to be accountable to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on the issue.

Last night, the immigration Minister was not able to say in detail how the Government intend to respond to the declared will of the House on the Gurkhas. Will the right hon. and learned Lady therefore arrange for the Prime Minister, who was clearly the principal architect of the Government’s ungenerous proposals, to make a statement in the next two weeks? Will she also be good enough to sit next to him, so that she can prevent him sneaking out before he is called?

I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a Member of the House when the Conservatives were in government, that neither he nor they proposed any rights of settlement for Gurkhas. When we came into government, we arranged for all those from 1997 to have rights of settlement. We will respect the points raised in the debate on the Liberal Democrat motion and take them forward.

I have raised previously the use of hazardous chemicals in nail bars in this country. However, research has identified a new hazard—the use of ultraviolet lamps—associated with skin cancer. Will the Leader of the House suggest how the Secretary of State for Health might revisit the non-interventionist approach to the beauty industry and its potential health hazards, and be more active in protecting women’s health?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Whether it is mostly women—and some men—who get melanoma skin cancer from sun beds, hazardous chemicals having a terrible effect on women’s fingernails, breast enlargement surgery or facelifts—[Interruption.] I will get back to her on those matters. Ministers for Women will work with Health Ministers on a set of proposals.

This week’s Helensburgh Advertiser starts off by saying that

“shocked staff at Faslane naval base have hit out, claiming they were kept in the dark over radioactive leaks.”

The Ministry of Defence must be completely open when such incidents happen. Attempts at excessive secrecy cause great concern locally and play into the hands of those who would like to see the base closed for ideological reasons. May we have an urgent statement from the Ministry of Defence about the recent radioactive leaks?

I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Ministers concerned.

The Health Secretary has published two important reports today about Stafford hospital. Given that one says that there are further urgent actions to be taken at the hospital, and the other has wider implications for the NHS about public and patient involvement and the responsibilities of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, may I stress the urgency of the need for an oral statement, and will the Leader of the House say whether we will get it on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday next week?

My hon. Friend has pressed on the issues of concern for patient care and safety and good treatment for his constituents. There will be an oral statement, although I cannot give the specific day at this point. When the Secretary of State is nearer to being clear on the matter, I will ask him to write to constituency Members at least to ensure that they know that the statement is happening.

On 25 March, the right hon. and learned Lady was incredibly kind in arranging a meeting between my constituents and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Today, I have received a letter in which he says that his officials have met my constituents, and in view of that he does not feel that a meeting is necessary. Will she explain why the noble Lord Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire is so unwilling to meet people from that constituency in the county of Herefordshire?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could put that point to the Ministers concerned during Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform questions next Thursday.

Can the Leader of the House assist those Members who wish to come to work by public transport? The pavements and roads around Parliament square have been dug up, fenced off and left abandoned, resulting in significant traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians. Will she therefore make representations to the appropriate authorities to find out how long this will last?

Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”

I shall make sure that the diverse authorities responsible for all these issues are aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed, which have been supported by other hon. Members.

Why is there nothing about grace and favour homes for Ministers in the motions that the Government have laid before us for debate later today, given that that matter was included—very welcome it was too—in the Prime Minister’s original proposals?

If the right hon. Gentleman waits until the next business, he will discover that I am going to address that in my speech.

Can we have a debate about early-day motion 1297, which I have co-sponsored?

[That this House, observing that the intention of the founding Act of the Bank of England in 1694 was ‘that their Majesties’ subjects may not be oppressed by the said corporation’, notes that those subjects have been seriously oppressed by the Bank’s failure to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system over which it presides; and therefore suggests that this oppression should be dealt with as the Act provides by fines three times the value of the abusive trading.]

The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) is not in his place, but he will see that the early-day motion deals with a failure to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system. When community banking is turned into casino banking, when training is in sales and not in banking, and when over-centralised decision taking has relegated local staff to box-ticking with no room at all for initiative, we need to review the ethics of our banking system.

I will ensure that the early-day motion is drawn to the attention of Treasury Ministers, the Financial Services Authority and Ministers in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Can we have a debate on the National Offender Management Service and, in particular, the ongoing contract with ClearSprings to provide bail hostels in the community? I recently received conflicting replies from ClearSprings and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is responsible for prisons. When I asked whether there were any future plans for bail hostels from ClearSprings in Crewe. ClearSprings’s reply was that it had no such plans, whereas the reply that I received from the Minister stated that

“one new property will be sourced.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 1120W.]

There is apparent confusion in the Government’s policy, so can we have a debate to clear it up?

I shall bring the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised to the attention of Ministers in the relevant Department. He might wish to ask a written question if he is not satisfied with the answer that he has received in the letter. May I congratulate him on running the marathon, although he did not run as fast as my deputy?

I welcome the Government’s concessions to the Gurkhas yesterday, but when they are published can we have a debate in the House? I sincerely hope that they will put the mistakes of last Friday behind us, because we will then be able to focus on the sheer naked opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition, whose party did nothing for the Gurkhas during 18 years of government.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will respond to the views of the House, and the House will be kept informed.

It appears that the resource required in Northern Ireland to fund adequately the transfer of policing and justice powers in Northern Ireland is increasingly significant. When might we have a debate in the House to discuss and consider the long-term implications of such a possible move?

I will discuss that issue with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, if I may, get back to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

May we have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House on the important report of the Rose review on the primary school curriculum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), amidst the enjoyable badinage in which he invariably specialises, declined or omitted to mention?

I understand that this consultation has been launched today, and no doubt the House will have an opportunity at questions and on further occasions to discuss the primary school curriculum.

May we have a debate on the iniquitous tax, IR35, which for the past 10 years has caused chaos and confusion for freelancers in this country? The tax is ambiguous and confusing, and it does not bring any money into the Treasury, so can we please debate it?

I will bring the points that the hon. Lady has made to the attention of Ministers in the Treasury, and she might find an opportunity to raise the matter in debates on the Finance Bill.

May we have an urgent debate on women’s rights? The Leader of the House will know that, like her, I have been a champion of women’s rights over many years. I am not talking about the half-baked plans in the Equality Bill; I wish us to discuss, in particular, the extension of sharia council powers, which, in some circumstances, discriminate against some women in some ethnic minority communities.

The Secretary of State for Justice has said that when private arrangements based on sharia law are raised with the courts by way of an argument for a contract or a particular disposition in a family case to stand and those are contradicted by our laws on equality, they will not be taken into account.

May I correct what I said about Sir Jim Rose’s review? It is actually a review, which the Government have accepted, that will raise standards by prioritising literacy and numeracy and embedding them across the whole curriculum to ensure that all children leave school secure in the basics. It is not a consultation exercise—that has already taken place.

The Leader of the House may know that the two reports that have just come out on Stafford hospital will not deal with the underlying lack of confidence in that hospital, welcome though they are in shedding some light on the situation. Does she accept that in order to get to the bottom of what has been going on, we need to have evidence on oath and the production of papers? Some evidence is emerging, which I am looking into, that some people in the hospital, who would be whistleblowers, are effectively being shut up by the authorities concerned—this is a very serious situation.

The hon. Gentleman makes a set of very serious allegations, and I think that the Health Secretary will want to address them when he gives his oral statement. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should seek to catch Mr. Speaker’s eye at that point.

May I say to the Leader of the House that she cannot keep running away from a debate on Equitable Life? Her deputy is a long runner, but this is a marathon that the Government are not going to win. We need a debate on this, because thousands of people have lost out. They need the compensation that they deserve and that they have rightly been told they will get. May we have a debate on Equitable Life soon, before more of these people, sadly, die off and do not get the compensation that they deserve?

Work is under way on the investigation by the judge that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1296, which concerns the case of Margaret Haywood, who was disgracefully struck off by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for blowing the whistle on the neglect of older people in the hospital at which she worked?

[That this House supports nurse Margaret Haywood who raised issues of concern around poor patient care; believes that Margaret was justified in exposing the worrying conditions at her local hospital and that the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) was wrong to strike her off the nursing register; notes the e-petition in support of Margaret Haywood organised by the Royal College of Nursing; calls on the NMC to reverse its decision; and further calls on the Government to take steps to ensure that the procedures and protection afforded to whistleblowers are understood and applied by all in positions of responsibility in the NHS.]

Is it not right that this House should have the opportunity to express its view about that case and the urgent need for this House to legislate to provide proper protection for frail and vulnerable older people and for those who blow the whistle on those who abuse them?

There will be a great deal of sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I shall draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. We must also ensure that there is consistency, so that if there are stringent penalties on nurses, such penalties operate in respect of people at all levels of the system. We should not find that there are much tougher rules for, and more stringent penalties on, nurses.

Next week, will the Modernisation Committee, which the Leader of the House chairs, be meeting? If not, can she tell us when it last met? If that was some time ago, will she consider transferring its responsibilities to the Procedure Committee, so that all Select Committees of the House are chaired by Back Benchers and not by members of the Cabinet?

If the right hon. Gentleman has issues that he would like the Modernisation Committee to address, perhaps he could write to me or just tell me what issues he thinks it should turn its attention to. The Modernisation Committee has worked well in partnership with the Procedure Committee and, on many issues, the Procedure Committee has taken things forward.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1190?

[That this House notes that many firms have introduced short time working for employees during this time of recession; further notes that many workers who are in receipt of tax credits are facing difficulties as the reduction in hours takes them below the minimum hours required to qualify for tax credits; and calls on the Government to take action to ensure that those who are so affected are deemed to still be working for the minimum hours and that their tax credits are maintained until such time as their hours are reinstated.]

This is an increasing problem during the recession. May we have a debate in Government time on the possibility of reducing the minimum hours necessary to qualify for tax credit during the recession?

The early-day motion and the hon. Gentleman’s comments show a good recognition of the flexibility of tax credits in making up for shorter working hours by boosting the family income. He makes a proposal in the early-day motion, supported by other hon. Members, and I will ensure that the Treasury responds to him.

Can the Leader of the House arrange for a general debate on London so that we can raise a wide variety of London issues and highlight the successes of the first year of the Boris Johnson mayoralty?

I do not know where to start on the complaints and concerns of many hon. Members who represent London constituencies. The most alarming has been the abandonment of the requirement that developments must include a minimum amount of social housing. That is a big problem when we need more social housing. Perhaps I should ask the Ministers with responsibility for housing whether we should have a debate on the Mayor of London’s sell-out on social housing.

The Christie charity, which supports the world-famous Christie cancer care centre in Manchester, stands to lose some £6.5 million as a result of the Icelandic banking collapse. As there are some 30 charities that stand to lose more than £50 million for the same reason, is it not time that we had a debate on the Government’s handling of the situation?

I will consider how best Ministers can update the House on this issue. The hon. Gentleman will know that constant work is being done on the issue by various Departments and the administrators of the Icelandic banks. It is hoped that most of those caught out by the collapse will get a large portion of their deposits back.

According to the leaked British National party manual “Language and Concepts Discipline”, the term “racial foreigners” should be used to describe black and Asian Britons, because such people “do not exist”. Given the forthcoming candidacy of BNP leader Nick Griffin, may we have a statement from the appropriate Minister on the role of proportional representation in making it far more likely that fascists, racists and neo-Nazis will get into the European Parliament?

Justice questions is on Tuesday, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to raise those issues with the Department with responsibility for electoral law. He makes an important point, and the message from all of us who deplore and abhor racism and division of the sort peddled by the BNP is that everybody must vote on 4 June. Anybody who does not vote is helping the BNP get into the European Parliament and it would be shameful if Britain were to be represented by racists and fascists.

May we have a debate on the safety implications of the operation of the Calor Gas Canvey Island site in the light of the spillage on 27 October last year of 163 tonnes of liquid propane gas, the operation of the leak detection equipment and the abject failure even now to inform Canvey residents about the leak—especially in the light of Buncefield?

I will ask the Ministers responsible to write to the hon. Gentleman, who is assiduous on behalf of his constituents on such issues.

May we have a debate on the situation of the nuclear academies, the Government’s flagship method of training for the future civil nuclear programme? In the south-west, the regional development agency is holding up the funding for the nuclear academy in Bridgwater. We need an urgent debate on that because we must start building soon to provide for the future of the civil nuclear programme.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the civil nuclear programme. He highlights the important role of the RDAs, and I point out to him and to other hon. Members that they would have an opportunity to hold RDAs to account for the work that they do in their regions if they attended the Regional Select Committees.

Thousands of former council tenants in south Manchester were promised that they would be no worse off if they voted for transfer to a housing association, but they are now being short-changed by the Government’s decision not to include housing associations in the lower rent increase. Will the Leader of the House meet the Minister for Housing and make proposals for fully compensating those people?

Several housing issues have emerged today, including the need to ensure that a certain percentage of social housing is included in planning permissions, the question of service charges and the housing association rents that the hon. Gentleman raises. All those issues bear examination and we may look for an opportunity to debate housing. The House will know that the housing sector has been affected by the global credit crunch, but we need many new houses.

I know that hon. Members want me to answer briefly on these points, but I shall now take a little more time. I know that the House is looking forward to the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but unfortunately he is not here yet.

The Leader of the House will know that the ministerial code says that when Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament. Last week, when she published the Equality Bill—which was not available to Members until Monday—she should have restrained herself from giving on-the-record briefings and making media appearances over the weekend on details in the Bill that were not previously available to Members. If the Leader of the House, who is supposed to be the guardian of the interests of Back Benchers, cannot make announcements to the House first, the concept of the Government’s accountability to Parliament is clearly dead and buried for this Government.

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is especially relevant to statements. If hon. Members are coming to the House to hear a statement, they should have the opportunity to ask the first questions on it, rather than being the second in line after those questions have been asked by a presenter on the “Today” programme or another media outlet. On the publication of Bills, the situation is slightly different. Action on gender pay gaps, positive action and the duty to narrow the gap between rich and poor have all been the subject of consultations and statements. I know that the hon. Gentleman has written to me on this issue, and I have thought carefully about it, but I find myself not guilty in that respect. I am sure that that will reassure him.

We need a debate on the conduct and competence of Home Office staff at immigration appeal tribunals. I attended one such hearing on 30 March in Bradford for my constituent Enid Ruhango, who is a victim of torture and rape in Uganda. As the hearing was about to start, the Home Office staff withdrew the entire decision, meaning that no appeal could be made—it was a complete farce. They then promised a new decision within 10 working days, but it has now been a month. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 30 March, but I have had no reply. This is not good enough for someone in such a position. When can MPs call the Home Office to account for such farces?

There will always be occasions on which the Home Office decides on appeal that it will withdraw its case. I have more immigration cases coming through my constituency office than any other Member, and I know that there has been a big improvement in the promptness, accuracy and courtesy with which the Home Office deals with cases, and we should put that on the record. There will always be cases in which things go wrong, including human error or facts that are discovered later in the process that mean that a decision has to be changed. Overall, however, Home Office staff are doing a good and important job, and improving how they do it.

We all hope that pandemic flu, even though it now seems pretty inevitable, will not prove too dangerous for people in the United Kingdom. However, has the Leader of the House thought through the implications for this place if it does prove dangerous? On the face of it, gathering a representative from every community in the United Kingdom, putting them in one Chamber, forcing them through old-fashioned crowded Lobbies and then redistributing them to every part of the United Kingdom sounds like the perfect transmission mechanism. Is this perhaps not a good time to try out more modern methods of voting, such as electronic voting?

The House of Commons Commission has contingency arrangements, which include the emergency planning arrangements for swine flu.

May I thank hon. Members, as we got through 34 Back-Bench contributions and two Front-Bench contributions in 46 minutes? I thank the Leader of the House for her answers, too. It shows what can be done.

I am not sure whether I can compete with that number of questions and answers in the next 45 minutes, but we will try our best.

With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the civilian crisis in Sri Lanka. I am very grateful to all Members of the House who contributed to yesterday’s important debate on the subject. I returned this morning from a visit to Sri Lanka with the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. I regret very much that the Sri Lankan authorities declined to allow our Swedish counterpart, Carl Bildt, to join us. Our visit to Sri Lanka was prompted by our increasing concern and that of many international colleagues, as well as of many Members of this House, for civilians in the north of the country, and in particular for the plight of the civilian Tamil population.

There are in fact two crises: that of the civilians trapped in the conflict zone as the Government enter the final stage of their fight with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam terrorists, and that of the thousands of civilians who have crossed over the front line in recent days. The purpose of the visit was threefold: first, to highlight the need to bring the conflict to an end in a way that minimises further civilian casualties; secondly, to press the case for the humanitarian relief effort to be ratcheted up, as the United Nations and the European Union have been calling for; and, thirdly, to make clear the need for a long-term political settlement that meets the aspirations of all communities in Sri Lanka.

Foreign Minister Kouchner and I met President Rajapaksa, Foreign Minister Bogollagama, the leader of the Opposition, Tamil and Muslim mainstream politicians and a series of permanent secretaries of the relevant Government Departments. We were briefed by the heads of the main United Nations agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We also visited a Government-run camp for internally displaced people at Vavuniya and visited a field hospital donated by the French Government. I heard a number of personal testimonies from recent arrivals in the camp. I am grateful for the way in which the Sri Lankan Government facilitated our visit.

The fog of war makes it difficult to be certain of the facts of the present situation. This is compounded by the lack of access for international agencies and the media. I heard widely different estimates of the number of civilians still trapped in the conflict zone. Government estimates ranged from 6,000 to 20,000 people. The UN, the ICRC and most others believe that there are at least 50,000. Some thought that the number could be as high as 100,000. Whatever the truth, it is clear that significant numbers remain, living under appalling conditions, under-nourished and in fear for their lives. I heard reports of civilians hiding in trenches to escape the shelling and of horrific injuries. I also spoke to people in the internally displaced person camps who recounted how the LTTE had forced them to stay in the so-called no-fire zone against their will and shot at them when they tried to flee.

We were told that 30 tonnes of food were delivered to the conflict zone between 1 April and 27 April, apparently enough to feed 60,000 people for just one day. A further ship delivered limited supplies during our visit. The ICRC has been able to send in only very limited medical supplies, despite having plentiful stocks in Sri Lanka. The block on deliveries of food and medical supplies hinges on security. To deliver these essentials to those innocent civilians trapped in the conflict zone, there needs to be safety. Ships take time to unload and the pauses provided by the Sri Lankan Government have not been long enough. As the House knows, the Government of Sri Lanka declared an end to so-called combat operations on 27 April. The President and Defence Secretary confirmed this to me personally and in definite terms. These commitments must be upheld.

In our discussions with the President and the Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Kouchner and I made it clear that the protection of civilians must be paramount. We emphasised that if the LTTE had any heart at all, it would let the civilians leave the conflict zone. As G8 Foreign Ministers said in their statement on 25 April, we were also very clear that the time for the conflict to end is now.

We were briefed in detail by the Sri Lankan authorities on their humanitarian relief efforts outside the conflict zone. We welcomed this exchange of information, the extensive work that was under way and the commitments that the Government of Sri Lanka made. Nevertheless, some of what we were told was in contradiction to the information given to us by the international humanitarian agencies.

Let me go through the facts as we understand them. According to the UN, 161,765 Tamils have left the conflict zone since October last year, including an estimated 119,000 in the past 10 days. This is very welcome, but the numbers have seriously challenged the Sri Lankan authorities. The UN agencies we spoke to were frustrated that the Government appear to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of them and others who are trying to assist the Government in dealing with this crisis. The agencies lack any access to IDPs until the IDPs have already been through the preliminary “screening” process. They do not have full access to the camps, and visas and authorisations to move people and goods into and around the country are too limited. Meanwhile, people are not being allowed out of the camps and many families have been separated. Some men, alleged to be LTTE cadres, have been taken from families and placed in so-called rehabilitation camps. All that reinforces the need for full and unhindered access by the UN and other agencies.

We therefore in the course of our visit returned again and again in our talks to five specific points in respect of the humanitarian situation: first, the need for visas to be issued swiftly to international humanitarian staff; secondly, the subject of travel permits for staff working on approved projects inside Sri Lanka; thirdly, the need for full access to IDPs as soon as they have crossed the front line and the monitoring of all stages of screening; fourthly, the need for a proper resettlement programme with specific deadlines to fulfil the Government's commitment to have 80 per cent. of IDPs resettled by year’s end; and, fifthly, to allow the distribution of sufficient food and medicine to meet the needs of civilians trapped in the conflict zone. We were promised intensive follow-up by the Sri Lankan Government and we will continue to engage with them on all these issues.

At present, the Sri Lankan Government are engaged in a war without witness in the north of the country. Civilians have fled the terror of the LTTE, but are afraid of what awaits them at the hands of the Government and unsure whether they will ever be allowed home. We were given assurances by the Sri Lankan Government that they had nothing to hide. We responded that it could therefore only be to the benefit of the Sri Lankan people and the Sri Lankan Government to work with the international community in a fully transparent way. By giving UN agencies and international non-governmental organisations the freedom to operate to capacity in all areas, the Sri Lankan Government would not only bring much needed relief to thousands of traumatised or injured people but attract greater confidence from the international community.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) will take up the invitation of President Rajapaksa and visit Sri Lanka as part of a cross-party group of MPs next week and will pursue these points. The other members of the group will be the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Buckingham (John Bercow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar). I share the gratitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that they have agreed to take part in this important visit at short notice. I will be visiting New York on 11 May for UN Security Council business and will pursue further UN involvement in the crisis. I will be discussing with Secretary Clinton tonight, as well as with other like-minded colleagues, how we can work more closely together to find a way to bring the fighting to a stop.

No one should underestimate the murderous damage done to Sri Lanka over the last 26 years by the LTTE, or the sheer hatred felt for its leadership. That is recognised in the international community, but while terrorist organisations work by killing people, democratic governments exist to protect them. That is why the fighting in Sri Lanka must end now. The LTTE is apparently cornered and trapped, having inflicted grievous suffering on the people of Sri Lanka, primarily Sinhalese and Tamil, but also Muslims. How the conflict is ended will have a direct bearing on the prospects for long-term peace in the country. The Government there must win the peace as well as the war. That will be the continuing focus of this Government’s activity, hand in hand with international partners, in the days and weeks ahead.

May I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House to make this statement? It was surely right for him to travel to Sri Lanka with the French Foreign Minister to highlight our deep concern about the civilian situation there and about the other issues that he has mentioned. He was also right to urge the Government of Sri Lanka to live up to their obligations, and to call on the LTTE to allow civilians to leave the conflict zone. All hon. Members across the House support the right hon. Gentleman in making that mission and in what he has said today. We also wish to register our emphatic dissatisfaction that Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, was denied a visa to join him on the visit.

I want to raise two sets of questions—the first about the needs of civilians caught up in the fighting, and the second about efforts to secure a real ceasefire. On the humanitarian situation, the UN has said that there have been 6,500 civilian deaths since January. Moreover, as the Foreign Secretary said, according to the UN at least 50,000 people are still trapped in the conflict zone. Those are the statistics, but we should always bear it in mind that they mean that entirely innocent human beings are caught up in a situation of absolute horror, and that many thousands of people in Britain are deeply worried every minute of the day about the safety of their friends and relatives.

Is it not a deeply depressing aspect of the conflict that both sides appear to have contributed to such massive civilian suffering? Reports that the LTTE has forcibly recruited young men to fight and used civilians as human shields are abhorrent. There are still conflicting reports about the use of heavy weaponry in the conflict zone. The Sri Lankan Defence Minister said yesterday that there would be

“absolutely no more heavy shelling”,

but reports this morning suggest that that promise may have been broken. Has the Foreign Secretary made any assessment of that, in view of the definite assurances that he has received and to which he referred in his statement?

We accept, of course, that the lack of access to the conflict area makes it very difficult for the Foreign Secretary to know the answer to this question, but can he give us his understanding of what the

“cessation of heavy military combat”

means on the ground? Does it mean that civilians are still caught up in fighting with lighter weapons? The Foreign Secretary has been to Sri Lanka, although he was not able to visit that specific area—what is his view on that?

There are also two crucial issues related to access to the conflict zone. First, we understand that aid agencies and convoys are still not allowed in to help, and secondly, we also regret the fact that the UN Secretary-General’s humanitarian team has still not been allowed to enter. Did the Foreign Secretary receive any rational explanation of why the Government of Sri Lanka continue to reject that vital assistance? Did he get any indication that their attitude will change?

It is clear that the Foreign Secretary has tried to insist on greater access. Considering the situation in the camps, what else does he think can be done to persuade Colombo to change its position? In his view, is the apparent screening of people held in camps leading to breaches of human rights? In the light of the reports of screening, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the Sri Lankan Government are on track to meet their commitment to return 80 per cent. of the people in the camps to their places of origin by the end of this year?

Finally, does the Foreign Secretary also agree that recent sustained signs of a deterioration in the human rights situation in Sri Lanka as a whole are of concern? In particular, there have been reports of abductions and disappearances, as well as of intimidation of the media and so on. Does he agree that it is strongly in Sri Lanka’s interests for those reports to be thoroughly and independently investigated?

My second set of questions concerns efforts to secure a ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary has been quite rightly pressing for a ceasefire that allows the humanitarian situation to be dealt with. It is disappointing that his efforts and pleas have been refused, subject to how we are to define what the Sri Lankan Government have announced so far. Does the right hon. Gentleman see any prospect for any further initiatives, and what is the next step in the process? Is there any prospect of formal UN Security Council involvement? Presumably, that would be very difficult to secure, given the position of Russia and China. Can he confirm reports that the US Government have suggested that they might withdraw their support for the $1.9 billion International Monetary Fund package for Sri Lanka’s central bank unless the Government do more to help trapped civilians? Has he discussed that with the US Secretary of State, and what is the UK Government’s position on the matter?

Does the Foreign Secretary see any scope for the Commonwealth, of which Sri Lanka is of course a member, to use its influence to bring about an improvement in the situation? That is especially important as Sri Lanka sits on the Commonwealth’s ministerial action group, and is responsible for upholding the Commonwealth’s core principles and values.

We all hope that the forthcoming visit by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) and his colleagues will help to improve matters, and we wish him well. Some kind of end to the immediate fighting may be in sight, but we agree with the Foreign Secretary that long-term stability can be achieved only through a settlement that satisfies the concerns and legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans, and that preserves democracy in that country.

We all hope that Sri Lanka’s longer-term future will be one of peace, stability and economic development, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that the country will need allies and partners across the world, and respect for the policies that it pursues? Does that not make a compelling case for Sri Lanka, in its own interests, to heed international calls to protect civilians and to prevent human rights abuses for the remainder of this tragic and continuing crisis?

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for his broad support for the calls that we have been making. It is notable that they have been echoed right across the House, and that can only be a good thing. He almost asked 46 questions on his own, never mind leaving room for 46 in the whole session, but I shall try to run through as many answers as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that there are continued reports about the use of heavy weaponry since Monday, when the first announcement was made by the Government of Sri Lanka that heavy weaponry would not be used. I deliberately did not refer to those reports in my statement, because at this stage they are only reports and it is very important that we get to the bottom of the facts. However, I am absolutely clear that the international community has been assured—very clearly and in definitive terms—by Sri Lanka’s President and Defence Secretary and others that heavy munitions as well as aerial and naval bombardments will not be used. In that context, credible evidence that they have been used would have very serious repercussions for the relationship between Sri Lanka and the rest of the world.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the end of heavy combat operations meant that civilians in the conflict zone were somehow safe. I cannot give him that assurance but, as he intimated, the Sri Lankan Government’s efforts to capture the leadership of the LTTE will continue, with the result that the danger of civilians being caught in crossfire will remain.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the aid agencies. There was a delivery on Monday, and a further one yesterday. A 1,000-tonne ICRC vessel is waiting to make another delivery, but the way that shipments are unloaded means that that takes three or four days. The fact that there is not the security to allow that to happen has been a major focus for us. I know that the House will have seen that the ICRC has put out a very strong statement today setting out its concern about the situation, and that tallies with what I have reported this morning.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon’s team, which was the product of talks that his chief of staff, Mr. Nambiar, held with the Sri Lankan Government nearly two weeks ago. It was reported to the UN Security Council that a team would be allowed into the conflict zone to assess the humanitarian needs. In addition, however, and rather separately from what the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the team would try to make provision for civilians to leave. That mission is now being denied by the Sri Lankan Government, and in fact they are saying that there never was any agreement for a UN Secretary-General mission to go to the area.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any rational explanation for Sri Lanka’s rejection of that assistance. The Sri Lankan Government have said that the team would not be safe in the conflict zone, but it is obviously a source of great concern that something could be reported to the UN Security Council as an agreement but then not followed through. The UN Secretary-General’s determination last Thursday after I spoke to him to dispatch the team to Colombo shows that the UN sees no practical obstacles to its reaching the area.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the return of 80 per cent. of people in IDP camps to their places of origin by December, and I think that the most important thing is to get a proper schedule. The main practical obstacle is the number of mines that exist in the country. The Sri Lankan Government want help with demining, but they must make sure that there is proper access if that help is to be forthcoming.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to mention the humanitarian problems in Sri Lanka as a whole, and that is a problem to which we have referred in written and oral statements to the House before. The killing of journalists is notable among those problems, and all friends of Sri Lanka will be concerned to ensure that its democratic heritage is upheld, because this is a time when Sri Lanka needs its democracy more than ever.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the involvement of the UN. He will know that Britain, France and the US raised the issue at the UN last week, under any other business. We have not yet been able to get it on to the formal agenda of the UN. The blockage does not come only from the two countries that he has mentioned, but obviously the New York special session on the middle east on Monday week will be an opportunity at least to try to take the agenda forward.

We are duty bound to look extremely carefully at the situation on the ground should any plan be presented to the IMF board. It is a basic tenet of the work of the IMF that any money should be put to good use, and that requires taking a close look at the situation on the ground, which is what we will do.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that Members of this House as well as the Government have approached the Commonwealth Secretary-General about Sri Lanka. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the prospects of progress in that sphere are rather limited by the make-up of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, and its practice of taking action only against countries that suspend their own democracy.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Sri Lanka’s need for allies in the future. That is evident from the scale of the humanitarian crisis with which it has to deal. Certainly my message and that of Foreign Minister Kouchner to President Rajapaksa yesterday was that Sri Lanka needed its friends and the international community, but the only way to keep them was to live up to the standards expected of a democratic Government.

I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on undertaking this initiative along with the French Foreign Secretary. It shows the priority given by the UK and French Governments to achieving a ceasefire. I refer my right hon. Friend to his letter to Members yesterday. He outlined three priorities, the first of which was to bring the conflict to an end. We all recognise that that is the most important initiative if we are to undertake the two further priorities that he outlined. My right hon. Friend said that he would be going to the UN and meeting the American Secretary of State over the weekend. Can he outline some of the discussions that he is likely to have and what initiatives he will put to them to ensure that we achieve that objective at the earliest possible time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in this issue. The discussions will focus on the items that we all agree are essential—the humanitarian crisis and how to get access for the UN agencies and their aid, but also how to fashion a halt to the fighting, and then in the longer term to ensure that some kind of political process is developed to respect all Sri Lanka’s minorities. I will discuss that with Secretary Clinton tonight.

Last night when I met many from the diplomatic community, I found one of the remarkable things was that high commissioners and ambassadors from countries around the world wanted to talk about how they could join the coalition for change in Sri Lanka. There is a real sense in the international community that there needs to be a coherent and focused engagement. When I spoke to Foreign Minister Bildt this morning on his way to Washington, he was clear that he wanted to remain engaged despite the denial of a visa to him.

May I start by wholeheartedly thanking the Foreign Secretary for making his trip to Sri Lanka and reporting back to the House immediately on his return? He has clearly read at least some of the debate that we had in the Chamber yesterday, and I hope that he finds the unity that we achieved and the tributes paid to him in his absence a small reward for his efforts. However, I also know that the rewards that he and all of us really seek are a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance and a settlement that brings peace and justice to all in the island of Sri Lanka.

The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that he was promised intensive follow-up by the Sri Lankan Government. Can he say what that actually means in terms of the timetable for enabling humanitarian assistance to get through, for media access and for the access of UN monitors, which is so important? He may also have noted the calls yesterday in the House for a major increase in diplomatic pressure on the political and military leaders on all sides, on top of what he is already doing, in order to secure a ceasefire. For example, surely we should be using the proposed IMF loan as leverage, telling the Sri Lankan Government that unless they listen to the reasonable humanitarian requests of the international community, that loan will not be forthcoming. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with other Governments, especially Japan’s, about producing a package of financial sanctions, such as an end to non-emergency development aid, that will be imposed on the Government of Sri Lanka if they fail to listen to the humanitarian requests?

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm a pledge that the Government made in the House yesterday that they support an early investigation into all allegations of war crimes and crimes against international humanitarian law? Has that message been conveyed to both sides? If not, will he ensure that all leaders in the conflict are reminded directly that there can be consequences, including personal consequences, to their actions?

The right hon. Gentleman will also know it has been alleged that what is happening in Sri Lanka amounts to genocide. Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office yet sought legal advice on whether that is what might be happening? If not, can he now request that such advice is sought?

Can the Foreign Secretary make special arrangements for all Members of the House, from all parties, who have worked so hard on this issue to be fully briefed by the FCO over the next few crucial days, weeks and months so that we can provide as much information as possible to our constituents who have families and friends who are suffering in Sri Lanka?

I am grateful for the interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in this issue and for the spirit of unity that he has sought to help to develop. I think that that can be sustained. The timetable for the intensive work started this morning. Sri Lankan time is four and a half hours ahead of us, but as I left the Foreign Minister last night in Colombo, he was clear that he would be attending to this as a matter of urgency. He had cancelled various trips and was focusing on it. We will continue to engage. Meetings are planned by people in the country, and I will be making sure that they happen. Some of them are still to be scheduled, but time is of the essence. That is why there is a sense of real urgency about this work and why the bold statement by the ICRC today is further testimony to the need for urgent action.

As I said in response to an earlier question, any IMF programme needs to be credibly implemented. That depends on the situation on the ground. We will look carefully and with due diligence at any proposals by the IMF authorities to take forward the suggestion of the Government of Sri Lanka that they want an IMF loan.

I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Japan on Tuesday morning. Obviously, Japan is an important player; it is a co-chair as well as a generous donor. In all the work that we do, we shall be concerned to avoid harm to the citizens of Sri Lanka of any community and to make sure that they do not lose out but, in saying that Sri Lanka needs its friends, it is implicit that it must uphold the standards of behaviour expected by its friends. I believe that that is important.

I stand four-square behind what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said last night at the close of the debate. Our standing position is that any allegations of war crimes by any side in any conflict need to be urgently, independently and credibly investigated, and that remains the case in this conflict. As it happens, the focus of the aid agencies yesterday morning, and of the UN, is on the immediate issues, for obvious reasons that I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, but I am happy to reaffirm the position of the Government on war crimes.

A British Foreign Secretary must be incredibly busy. I would like to just say to my right hon. Friend how proud I am of him for changing his diary and travelling thousands of miles in search of peace. The whole House is grateful for what he has done.

Echoing the sentiments of the shadow Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I suggest that the IMF loan is important. In his conversation with Hillary Clinton this evening, I hope that my right hon. Friend will convey to her the feelings of the whole House on the matter. In all his conversations and the huge efforts that he is making, please will he not forget the Indian Government? It is vital that we keep in touch with the Foreign Minister of India. I know that India is in the middle of elections, but it has a crucial role to play in ensuring that there is peace in this troubled island. I thank my right hon. Friend again for all that he has done.

I am extremely grateful for the heartfelt thanks from my right hon. Friend although, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, there will be no reward for any of us unless there is some alleviation of the suffering in Sri Lanka. I know that that is very much my right hon. Friend’s position as well because he has campaigned long and tirelessly on this issue.

The IMF question will certainly be addressed in many of the conversations that occur about this issue, and the situation on the ground will be very important in those discussions.

I spoke to Foreign Minister Mukherjee last week, and although he is in the middle of the election campaign, he has given important priority to this issue. As my right hon. Friend says, India is a vital player when it comes to change in Sri Lanka. Notwithstanding the challenges of the election campaign, I spoke to the Indian high commissioner in Colombo last night. He reiterated the Indian Government’s concern, and I reiterated that I would soon be in touch again with Foreign Minister Mukherjee, because—election campaign, or no election campaign—this is obviously a matter of high concern to the Indian Government.

May I join colleagues from both sides of the House in thanking the Foreign Secretary for what he is trying to achieve for peace? I have taken on board everything that he said about the Commonwealth committee, but has the time not come, as people are dying every day, to call for Sri Lanka’s suspension from the Commonwealth?

I totally understand the sense of frustration that the hon. Gentleman feels, given that the circumstances are indeed dire in Sri Lanka. As he knows, the Commonwealth has only ever suspended countries on the basis of the violation of its democratic norms, which are at the heart of the rather ironically titled Harare declaration—irony is not really a strong enough word, but the House will know what I mean—and that may be a good or a bad precedent, but that is the fact of how the Commonwealth works. Sri Lanka is one of the members of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which works only by consensus, and that is why the secretary-general has appointed to the limits of what the Commonwealth can do in this area. Obviously, we have a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting coming up, but frankly that is too far away, given the immediate needs that exist, and that is why it is right that we pursue progress via other channels at the moment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for making the trip that he has just made and for acting to protect innocent civilians in Sri Lanka. I hope that other leading politicians and statespeople around the world will see that as an example that it is important to stand up and be counted, and we are grateful that he has done that on behalf of the whole House.

My right hon. Friend referred to the statement of 27 April and the Government of Sri Lanka saying that they had ended combat operations. I wonder whether he could say a little bit more about whether we can have confidence in that, particularly given that we have not achieved a ceasefire.

May I press another point with my right hon. Friend? I am pleased that he is going to the UN shortly, but despite the difficulties of achieving a UN resolution for the reasons that we have discussed before, it is very important that we continue every diplomatic effort possible with all members of the Security Council to make it absolutely clear that if it is not possible to achieve a resolution because of the veto, the overwhelming majority of that council’s members totally support such a resolution if achieving one is possible.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue. I wish that a large majority of the UN Security Council supported action on the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made the rather important point when I met him last week that, when he was in New York last week, all the demonstrations happening there were outside the buildings of countries that supported UN action. I fear that that number is not very large and certainly not large enough, but she can be assured that I will continue to work with all countries around the world on the issue.

The first question that my right hon. Friend asked was about the commitment to end so-called combat operations, or heavy mortar fire and the use of naval and air power. What I and Foreign Minister Kouchner said to the President and what we repeated to the Foreign Minister was that there could be no greater word of honour placed by the President and Defence Secretary of a country to two visiting Foreign Ministers but that the use of such weaponry will end. That is why, given that the stakes are so high on that word being its bond, we ensure that we bottom out all reports before we comment on them. The consequences could not be more serious for a country to promise that it will not use heavy weaponry and then to do so. That is why all reports or rumours need to be investigated. Equally, it is incumbent on me to be careful before making accusations that are not wholly well founded and well researched.

May I echo the words of thanks of other hon. Members to the Foreign Secretary and the comments made from both Front Benches that there is clearly fault on both sides in the dispute? The Foreign Secretary will be well aware that the humanitarian crisis for innocent Tamil civilians concerns the whole House. Although we take on board his comments that he was assured that the Sri Lankan Government had nothing to hide, given the blockages at the UN can he tell us what confidence he has that the Government of Sri Lanka will react to international pressure, particularly on the five points that he outlined and especially on the humanitarian visas given to outside organisations?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will not start giving percentages, marks out of 10 or grades of confidence, but those five issues are much higher on the agenda today than they were on Tuesday, before Foreign Minister Kouchner and I went. Tragically, for some Tamil civilians it is too late. That should drive us forward, to ensure that no time is lost on following through on these issues. It is very important that we recognise that democratic Governments are held to higher standards than terrorist organisations. I made that point in my statement. It recurs in a number of parts of the world where democratic Governments may feel frustration at the limits that are imposed on them in how they conduct their operations, but those limits are imposed for very good reason: if we do not defend the values that we are meant to uphold in the way that we attack terrorism, we fall to standards that we should not even consider. The fact that the LTTE is preventing civilians from leaving the combat zone says everything that we need to know about where its interests lie, but it is vital that the Government of Sri Lanka rise above that—they need to find a way that builds a peace as well as wins the war, and we are trying to work with them to achieve that.

I do not want my right hon. Friend to become big-headed, but on behalf of my constituents may I say how proud I was that he took the time to go to Sri Lanka? That was a really brave decision, and we will be for ever in his debt for doing it. But we always want more of our friends, so may I ask that he does everything he can at the UN Security Council? I do not wish to frighten him, but a number of Members are going round to all the London embassies of the Security Council’s members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) and I have recently come back from the Austrian embassy. We went to see the Costa Ricans last week. We are overwhelmed by their great confidence in the leadership of the UK Government and their willingness to support them in any way they can. We therefore believe that a large number of countries want to support my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his efforts and are there to back him up. Finally, if he can find the time in his busy day, could he possibly meet a similar delegation of UK young Tamils to talk about his visit to Sri Lanka?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has shown determination and passion in abundance in standing up for her constituents on this issue. The work done by parliamentarians and civilians around the world is exactly what we want in a democracy, and I applaud the peaceful and diplomatic discussions that she has undertaken. Well, perhaps they are not always diplomatic, but she knows what I mean—the sometimes diplomatic but always passionate discussions that she undertakes. I can certainly confirm that we are in touch with as many countries as we can find, because this important issue requires the coalition that we have been trying to build for some time but that is now beginning to come to fruition.

May I, too, commend my right hon. Friend for the courageous and determined way that he has pursued peace in Sri Lanka? What reasons did the Sri Lankan Government give for not agreeing to an immediate ceasefire, for blocking relief aid into the area and for not allowing transparent, independent access to the media and human rights organisations? Will our Government now consider ensuring that the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in 2011 is not hosted by Sri Lanka, as it wishes?

As I said in my statement, the Sri Lankan Government did not have the same rendition of the facts as the agencies about the delivery of various forms of aid. They denied allegations that they were blocking aid, and it is important that we follow through on that in detail. On the ceasefire, they argue that they need to prosecute their military campaign against the LTTE to its end. They point—rightly, actually—to the fact that they have made more advances in the past three or four months than anyone expected and that 120,000 citizens have been got out of the conflict zone. While they put forward those arguments we, in return, have emphasised the paramount importance of protecting civilians’ lives, as we will continue to do.

Given the Sri Lankan Government’s stated intent to continue this “war without witness”, to use the Foreign Secretary’s term, will the Government suspend any UK arms export licences to Sri Lanka with immediate effect? What steps is he taking to prevent the sale of munitions, including artillery shells, to the Sri Lankan military by EU countries? If we did not take such steps, would we not be complicit in any further civilian deaths?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we, alongside other European countries, have the toughest arms export criteria in the world. There has never been a shred of evidence to suggest that the Sri Lankan Government have used British artillery. We will continue to impose that tough arms control regime in everything that we do.

May I add my thanks to the Foreign Secretary? My constituents in the Milton Keynes Tamil association will be heartened by the seriousness with which he is taking his concerns, as he demonstrated by going to Sri Lanka with Mr. Kouchner. May I focus on one of his five points—full access to the IDPs? There is huge concern among the Tamil community about the way in which men are being screened out of the IDPs and assumed to be part of the LTTE, just because they are male Tamils. Will he ensure that that point is not lost as part of all the other issues that he is rightly pursing at the UN and in other places?

This is an important point. Some young Tamil men have been taken for “rehabilitation”, although not all of them. It is important that I say that I talked to many young men at the IDP camp that I saw yesterday, as well as women—both younger and older. One reason why we have been emphasising the need for UN access throughout the non-conflict area is precisely to address that concern of my hon. Friend and her constituents, which we will continue to raise.

On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to end a conflict that has caused such suffering and destruction. Given his statement that this is a war without witness, will he prioritise ensuring that there is proper UN monitoring and freedom of the press so that democratic values and a respect for human rights can be restored to Sri Lanka and, especially, the Tamil people?