What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Kurdish people about the situation in northern Iraq. [104459]

What plans he has to ensure long-term stability in Iraq. [104460]

I know that the whole House will join me in extending our profound condolences to the families of the servicemen who have been killed in the conflict or who are missing in action.

Coalition forces are making steady progress towards our objectives. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out to the House yesterday, we are determined to pursue this campaign in a way that minimizes the suffering of ordinary Iraqis and safeguards the wealth of the country for the future prosperity of all its people; and to make this an action not of conquest but of liberation.

On the situation in the north, Ministers and officials are in regular contact with Kurdish leaders and with the Government of Turkey.

On long-term stability, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out last week our vision for an Iraq which is stable, prosperous, at peace with itself and its neighbors and able to play a full role in the international community.

Yesterday, many Members posed questions to the Prime Minister on their concerns about Turkish incursions into northern Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will recognise that those anxieties are especially heightened by the massing of Turkish troops on the border. What efforts are being made to ensure that this potential disaster is thwarted and that the Truks, as well as the Kurds, realise that such moves would serve to benefit them neither now nor in the future?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the stability of the border area between Turkey and the Kurdistan-controlled part of Iraq and the need for restraint both by the Kurds and Kurdish leaders and the Government of the autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq and by the Government of Turkey. As I have indicated, we have held extensive discussions not only with Kurdish leaders but also with the Government of Turkey. I spoke face to face with Foreign Minister Gul at the European Council in Brussels last Friday and we continue to urge the Turkish Government to show maximum restraint and to understand that, as my hon. Friend says, it would not serve their interests any more than the interests of those within the Kurdish area if aggressive military action were to be taken by Turkish forces.

How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect it to take for good governance to be established in Iraq post-conflict, bearing in mind that resources will be available from frozen assets and potential oil revenues to establish humanitarian and regeneration priorities? Moreover, does he agree that it would be wholly unacceptable for countries that refuse to join the coalition to free Iraq from tyranny to benefit commercially from its reconstruction?

I cannot give any indication of when we anticipate that the military action will be concluded—that is the nature of warfare. On the establishment of good governance thereafter, we believe that can happen pretty rapidly. The Iraqis are a talented people; they have a basis for public administration and reasonable communications. Unlike Kosovo or Afghanistan, Iraq is a rich country and billions of dollars are lying idle in escrow funds in New York—United Nations funds—because the Iraqi Government have failed to unlock them. I am optimistic about the establishment of good governance as soon as the conflict is over.

Is it not the case that the Turks have also been helpful to the Kurds of northern Iraq in the past by allowing their bases to be used for the planes that police the no-fly zones, so some gratitude should be shown to the Turks at the same time as saying to them very clearly that there is no reason for them to cross the border into northern Iraq? There is no perceived threat any longer from the PKK since its leader was locked up two years ago; nor is there a necessity to provide refugee camps inside the Kurdish border of northern Iraq when there is no perceived refugee movement towards the border with Turkey.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who correctly acknowledges from her position of great authority on this subject that the Turkish Government have played a constructive role to try to calm tensions between the Turkish community on one side of the border and the Kurdish community on the other. We look to them to continue to do so. In my discussions last Friday with Foreign Minister Gul, he went out of his way to explain that the Government of Turkey had done their very best to keep contact and maintain co-operation with Kurdish leaders.

On refugee camps, the situation on the ground has changed markedly compared with 1991, when 500,000 Kurdish refugees went across an undefended border into Turkey because at that stage that area of Iraq was under the control of Saddam. Now it is not. None the less, we acknowledge the anxieties of the Turkish Government about refugees, which is one of the many reasons why we maintain such close contact with them.

May I first associate the Opposition with the Foreign Secretary's condolences to those who have lost loved ones in action in Iraq?

Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that post-Saddam Iraq will be run by a genuinely representative Administration, who will preserve and foster new democratic systems such as that in northern Iraq, will avoid creating permanent and subjugated minorities and will not been seen merely as a surrogate for rule by America, Britain or both? How confident is he that the United Nations will become involved in the reconstruction of Iraq and the stability of its Administration? The liberation of Iraq is being won by America, Britain and the rest of the coalition, despite the French and the European Union. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any UN participation in reconstruction will actually reflect hat fact?

I am confident that the Iraqis will be able to establish good, representative governance. That confidence is based on the innate talents of the Iraqi people, but specifically on the agreement that was reached in the Azores between Prime Minister Aznar, President Bush and the Prime Minister, who agreed—this was reflected in the motion passed by the House a week ago—that we would seek the adoption of a new UN Security Council resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian aid and reflect and endorse an appropriate post-conflict Administration for Iraq. There are differences in the EU about the conflict, as is well known, but I am glad to say that a constructive approach to the provision of aid and humanitarian relief was shown by our EU colleagues at the European Council meeting last Thursday and Friday.

What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made about the effects of the war on the wider region? What information has he received about the possibility of disruptive intervention in Iraq by Iranian militia, and what plans are there to forestall that? What hope is there that Turkey as a friend and colleague in NATO will work, if not under the coalition, at least with the coalition in any use of its armed forces in or around northern Iraq? What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to persuade Iraq's Arab neighbors that a benign and prosperous Iraq, instead of pumping poison into the surrounding region, could help to spread prosperity and peace throughout the Arab world?

To take the last point first, it is well known that, in public, Arab leaders—for example, at the meeting of the Arab League in Cairo yesterday—with the single exception of Kuwait have taken a public position of criticising coalition action. However, that public position disguises a very wide range of private opinions held by those leaders and, indeed, by those on the street as well. I think that once the coalition action has been successful, we will see a very significant shift, both by the leaders and by those on the street.

On the reports about Iranian militia incursions into Iraq, we have no basis of evidence at all to substantiate what we regard as poor reports in the media. I have seen no evidence about that whatsoever. Moreover, we have good relations with the Government of Iran, and only last Thursday I was in touch with the Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, talking about this and other matters.

On Turkey—well, Turkey is an important NATO ally, and it has faced its own difficulties about the extent of military co-operation, which we understand. At the same time, its Parliament has agreed to overflight facilities for US and UK forces.

The Arab leaders will have heard the British Foreign Secretary just publicly brand them as liars, but on that subject, the British military spokesman said to the BBC yesterday, "We expected a lot of hands up, but it hasn't quite worked out that way." Is not the Government's problem that the weapons of forgery, plagiarism, fabrication and lies that they have fed the people of this country and the world have become boomerangs, which are now cutting, alas, not the bodies of the donkeys who sent our people into battle, but the lions who are having to stand and fight in defence of the British Government's lies, forgery and deception?

I would find my hon. Friend's extravagant rhetoric more convincing if only I did not recall that he used exactly the same rhetoric in respect of the military action in Afghanistan, and predicted that there would be a world war that went on for at least a year or two years—

You said it would be over.

Order.

A year ago, you said it would be over.

Order. The hon. Gentleman put the question. I cannot help the reply that he gets. He cannot complain about the reply.

Over past years, Iran has been host to 3 million Afghan refugees and about 500,000 Iraqi refugees. One can therefore understand its reluctance to have an open border towards any refugees resulting from the current situation. Would the Secretary of State not agree that any post-Saddam Iraq, in terms of humanitarian aid, must take into account the situation with Iran? What discussions has he had with the Iranian Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the possibility of the establishment of up to 10 camps run by the Iranians within Iraq?

I have had no specific discussions with the Iranian Government about the establishment of such camps. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have made a great deal of effort in the past two years to improve relations with the Government of Iran. Indeed, I have visited Tehran on three occasions in the past 20 months, and I look forward to further visits. The Iranians, of course, know more about the terror and evil of the Saddam regime than almost any other peoples in the world, because they lost so many innocent people, not only through conventional warfare but through chemical warfare, during the Iran-Iraq war, and they have suffered from instability on both sides of their border. The issue is therefore the subject of continual discussion between me and my colleague and friend Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, and, day by day, between our ambassador and his staff and the Iranian Foreign Ministry and other ministries in Tehran.

I have said to my right hon. Friend previously that one of the principal reasons why I am against the invasion of Iraq is that the down side will inevitably be greater than any benefit. In relation to the question that he was asked about northern Iraq, we all know now that Turkish forces have crossed the border, although probably 2,000 to 3,000 Turkish troops have been there for a number of years. The real crunch will come when Turkish forces inevitably get involved in a military combat with the Kurdish forces. In the representations that my right hon. Friend has made to the Turkish Government, has he indicated whether Britain and America would be prepared to take military action on behalf of the Kurds against the Turkish invading forces in the north?

I understand that my hon. Friend has a different point of view from ours, and this is an issue of trying to balance the advantages and disadvantages of military action. I do not, however, share his view that Turkish forces will "inevitably" get involved in military action against the Kurds. That is a distant possibility, and we are using every endeavour, in co-operation with the Government of Turkey and Kurdish leaders, to ensure that that does not happen. I would only say that the experience of northern Iraq gives me very great optimism about the future of Iraq without Saddam Hussein. Despite all the opposition to the no-fly zones and that action, it is incontrovertible that the introduction of the no-fly zones enabled there to be a Kurdish autonomous region. On every single indicator, in terms of child health, schooling, nutrition and freedom, that Kurdish autonomous zone, freed from the terror of Saddam Hussein, has been infinitely better than that part of Iraq that remains under the cosh of Saddam Hussein.

What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Israel regarding the proposed road map to peace. [104461]

What initiatives he is undertaking to bring into existence a fully internationally recognised state of Palestine. [104468]

If he will make a statement on his middle east policy. [104469]

If he will make a statement on the Government's current activities in seeking a middle east peace settlement. [104470]

What steps the Government is taking to promote the establishment of a Palestinian state and the withdrawal of illegal settlements. [104471]

I discussed the road map with my Israeli counterpart, the new Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, on 21 March. The United Kingdom Government are committed to the establishment of a viable state of Palestine living in peace alongside a secure state of Israel, as provided in Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. This is achievable through full implementation of the Quartet road map, which was published, after the approval of Abu Mazen's Government, by the Palestinian Legislative Council.

In recent months, we have worked with the Palestinians on their reform effort, notably through meetings in London on 14 January and between 18 and 20 February. We have encouraged President Arafat to appoint a Prime Minister. We are grateful that he has and, by doing so, he has helped to clear the way for road map publication.

The first phase of the road map includes a requirement on Israel to take specific steps to halt settlement activity, which is illegal under international law and plainly an obstacle to peace.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. When can we except phase 1 of the road map to be implemented and, especially, when will the Israelis and Palestinians give a commitment to the two-state solution? Will he comment on, and tell us what lies behind, Prime Minister Sharon's remarks in the Knesset that the road map is a matter of "controversy"? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that peace in Israel and Palestine cannot be achieved by going down the path of bulldozing settlements and homes in acts of collective retribution and justice or down the path of suicide bombers, but that the road to peace must be a two-state solution that is agreed and signed up to in full with no amendments?

The important thing is to get the road map published and for both sides to start work on its implementation with the facilitation provided by the Quartet. I cannot give specific time scales, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the aim of the road map is to move away from present divisions and conflict towards a situation in which there are two states in a relatively short time.

A viable and separate state of Palestine is controversial in sections of Israeli politics but also in parts of the Arab world. Some people in the Arab and Islamic world take the view that there should be a one-state solution. However, a two-state solution has been agreed, it is part of international law under resolution 1397 and it is our duty to ensure that it is implemented.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about suicide bombers and the bulldozing of people's homes in the settlements. We must end the spiral of violence and destruction. The only way the 6 million people in Israel and the 3.5 million people in the occupied territories can live together is by living in peace, which is the aim of the road map.

What commitments has the Foreign Secretary received from Abu Mazen that he will end Palestinian terrorist activity?

I have not spoken to Abu Mazen since his appointment, although I spoke to him before that. We regard him as a fine politician and statesman who is fully capable of leading the Palestinians. He is committed, as is the rest of the Palestinian Authority, to a peaceful path. The Palestinian Authority will be required to take firm security action against the terrorist organisations, but some of the Arab states that neighbour Israel and the occupied territories have an even greater responsibility to end the funding and support of terrorist organisations. Of course, ore of those countries is Iraq.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that providing for a secure Palestine with recognised and secure boundaries, in addition to a secure Israel, is the greatest contribution that could be made to peace in Europe and Asia, as well as in the middle east? If so, will he explain why phase 1 of the so-called road map appears to require a withdrawal by the Israelis to the position as of September 2000? Will he confirm that Government policy is still for all occupied territories to be returned to the Palestinian Authority and that Israel should have returned to its 1967 boundaries by the end of the three phases?

If we are to get from where we are to where we want to be, there has to be a phasing of it. The first stage needs to be a withdrawal by the Israeli defence force and other security forces from area A, which represents the occupied territories previously and effectively controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Our policy remains that very clearly laid down in resolutions 242, 338 and 1397: a return to the 1967 borders—there may be some amendments to those, but a state based on the 1967 borders—an end to the settlements, a solution to the refugee problem and a capital for a Palestinian state in Jerusalem.

There remains some scepticism in the Muslim community in my constituency over whether the United States Administration are genuinely committed to the peace plan and that the plan is required to be backed up by the United States using its influence over the Israeli Government to prevent the incursions that are taking place in Palestinian areas. What is required is an assurance not just from this Government but from the United States Administration that this will be a priority in foreign policy not only at the end of the Iraqi conflict but from now.

I understand the scepticism, which is shared by my own constituents and not just by my own Muslim constituents. It is incumbent on the United States Government, as much as it is on the other partners, to deliver on the road map. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has played an absolutely critical role in securing the creation of a road map and its earlier publication than anticipated. The middle east peace process will be one of the major items on the agenda for discussions that my right hon. Friend and I will be having with the United States Administration later this week.

Following that answer, does the Foreign Secretary accept that at a time when many Arabs in the middle east are believing Saddam Hussein's false propaganda that this is a war against Arabs, the acid test for moderate opinion in the middle east and for the very large Arab media, whose microphones we see before Saddam Hussein every day, will be the attitude to the Palestinian question and a genuine commitment to two states secure in their borders? Will the right hon. Gentleman finally accept that it is a measure of how far we in the west—America and Britain—have failed that we now see press reports that large numbers of Palestinians are among the Fedayeen fighting our soldiers at this very moment?

I have not seen those reports, but I accept entirely the burden of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Only a tiny handful of people in Iraq and in the Islamic world outside Iraq have anything good to say about the Iraqi regime and the terror committed by Saddam Hussein. At the same time, across the Arab and Islamic world there is a real palpable sense of injustice at the way in which the Palestinians have been treated. I know that all of us acknowledge and share that. That is why, if we are to ensure that there is not a terrible clash of so-called civilisations or religions, we in the west, with our power, have a profound duty to deliver justice to the Palestinians alongside security for the Israelis.

Although we are all delighted that the United Kingdom Government have played such a role in the agreement that has led to the road map—I think particularly of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary accept that people cannot go on talking about this road map for much longer without seeing what it is? Will he explain either what is impeding publication or what steps it is expected will need to be taken before it can be published?

I accept that there is a degree of impatience, which I have to say we share, about the publication of the road map. The approximate reason for its delay is this. It was due to be published in December, but because of the impending Israeli elections on 28 January, it was decided that its publication had to be delayed until an Israeli Government were in place. An Israeli Government are now in place, and we have almost got to the point of having a Palestinian Authority Government in place. We want to see the road map published the moment that the Palestinian Government are fully in place and have been approved by the Palestinian Legislative Council.

The whole House will note my right hon. Friend's choice of words to describe the delay in the publication of the road map. I am not sure that the whole Palestinian community would exactly go along with that choice of words, but I would like to deal with another major issue affecting the daily lives of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza. Given that there has to be good will on both sides, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what evidence there is that the new Israeli Government are attempting to curtail the activities of their defence forces on the west bank and Gaza in their approach to the Palestinian community? The United Nations has made it clear that only 600 of the 10,000 houses that have been demolished have any connection whatsoever with any security operation, yet the Israeli defence force continues to demolish houses. What chance does the Palestinian community have if the Israelis are simply going to humiliate them daily?

Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that the publication date of the road map is a matter to be decided by the partners in the Quartet, and is not the responsibility of either the Government of Israel or the Palestinian Authority. It is, as it were, our decision, not theirs. On my hon. Friend's second point, we continue to call for the Israeli defence force to show proper restraint. In all my conversations with Israeli Foreign Ministers—with B. B. Netanyahu and now with Mr. Shalom—I have emphasised not only that that is required under international law and simple human care, but that it is not in the interests of the Government of Israel or the reputation of the Jewish people to act excessively and outside international law.

Could my right hon. Friend give a more specific assurance about the role that the American Administration will play in the implementation of the road map? I am thinking specifically about the halting of the demolition of Palestinian homes and the removal of Israeli settlements in the west bank.

The US Administration are a key part of the Quartet. They are one of the four partners in the Quartet, and have signed up to the road map. It is known, of course. that Israeli politics and concern for Israeli security are a dominant theme in United States politics—that is just a fact of life. It is critical to build confidence among both the Israeli community in Israel and the Jewish community in the United States that their security is not going to be daily threatened by terrorism, particularly by suicide bombers. We have worked very hard with the Americans, the Israelis and particularly the Palestinian Authority to ensure that the maximum security action is taken against those terrorists. However, to return to the key point made by my hon. Friend, I believe that the US Administration are fully committed to the implementation of the road map, otherwise they would not have endorsed it. We shall press them, as with all the other partners in the Quartet, to press ahead with its implementation.

The Liberal Democrats, too, wish to associate themselves with the earlier comments of the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary about the sad loss of members of the armed forces—our thoughts are with their families.

The Foreign Secretary properly emphasised the importance of the road map to peace in the middle east. Once the new Palestinian Government have been formed, the next step in the draft plan requires unequivocal statements from both sides recognising each other and ending violence against each other. In light of the many recent deaths in the region, does the Foreign Secretary believe that the parties are close to being able to make such statements? Does he agree with the Israeli Prime Minister's suggestion that the road map is still negotiable? At what point will it cease to be amendable?

I can certainly express hope on the hon. Gentleman's first point. It is in the interests of both sides to live in peace, so they have to recognise that the only way to peace is a two-state solution. On the issue of amendment, yes, I am aware that there are those in Israel who want amendments, and I discussed that with Foreign Minister Shalom last week in a long telephone conversation. My point to him was that the road map is the property of the Quartet, not the Israeli Government or the Palestinian Authority. It is a framework: yes, some of its detail may of course be changed over time, but what we cannot see is any change to its fundamental principles.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred to the scepticism of our constituents, both Muslims and others, over the middle east peace process, and particularly America's involvement in it, and by connection, its involvement in Iraq. Is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House what are the key ingredients of the road map that will give our constituents some confidence that it might succeed where so many other peace initiatives have failed?

Copies of the informal text of the road map, which has not yet been published, are available in the Library. There is no magic ingredient in the road map; it reflects a series of previous peace plans. What is required—I suppose that this is the difference—is a stronger international commitment to its implementation, and perhaps more robust international architecture, and a weariness on the part of the Palestinians, the Israelis and the international community with the idea that conflict provides any answer to the solution of this centuries old problem.

How far has the Foreign Secretary pressed upon the Israeli Government the importance of making urgent and even-handed progress towards the two-state solution, which those of us who are friends of both Israel and Palestine believe is the only way forward? In that context, is it not vital that nothing further is done now before publication of the road map that could block it by pre-empting negotiations and decisions? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that not only includes continuing settlement activity—I am sure that he welcomes, as I do, the small but significant dismantling of the outposts near Hebron yesterday—but must also include the continued development of the new security fence on boundaries that presumably can never conform to those in the road map? To clarify this, should not the road map be published immediately?

We continue to press the Government of Israel very hard on the principles of the road map. That comes up time and again in conversations with Israeli Ministers and representatives, but also, for example, and in a sense more powerfully, in the actions that the British Government decided to take when the Israeli Government decided to ban representatives of the Palestinian Authority from travelling to the London meeting. We decided that we would not simply accept, as it were, an attempt by the Government of Israel to cancel our meeting. Instead, we pressed ahead with it by using video links. I believe that that was an important milepost on the way to getting the road map published.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to express anxieties about the security fence, which unlawfully takes more land from the Palestinians, and in some instances, quite gratuitously, good agricultural land. That is unacceptable and we have made that clear to the Israelis. The road map needs to be published as quickly as possible. With a decision by the partners in the Quartet, it will be published as soon as Abu Mazen's ministerial team is confirmed by the Palestinian Legislative Council.

What assessment he has made of the links between the Iraqi regime and terrorism in the middle east. [104462]

The Iraqi regime has supported, trained and financed the Mujaheddin-e Khalq Organisation terrorist group and encouraged terrorism in the middle east for years, including assisting the murderous Abu Nidal group, the Palestinian Liberation group and Hamas, as well as making payments to the families of suicide bombers.

Does my hon. Friend accept that Saddam Hussein's payments of about $25,000 to the families of every successful suicide bomber, in highly publicised ceremonies involving the Palestinian Authority, indicates that Saddam Hussein is part of the problem and not part of the solution? Will he be urging Abu Mazen to sever ties with similar groups sponsored by countries such as Iran and Syria, to give peace and the road map a chance?

On my hon. Friend's final point, the new Palestinian Prime Minister designate, Abu Mazen, needs to be very clear in his condemnation of terrorism, and I believe that he will be. As for my hon. Friend's overall point, payments to suicide bombers and their families, or any encouragement for suicide bombers, is reprehensible. The Iraqi regime is clearly part of the problem. The regime has been directly responsible for helping to fuel the conflict in the middle east. The removal of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the restoration of a stable and democratic Iraq will benefit the whole region. We also need to pursue a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an equally important precondition for long-term peace in the region.

With potential terrorist attacks and also attacks by the Iraqi regime in the whole middle east region, will the Minister please urgently review the advice and support given to British citizens currently living in Kuwait? A constituent of mine has contacted me to say that the British embassy has failed to issue gas masks, while the French embassy has done so for its citizens. Could that matter be looked into?

We are giving clear advice to the various British citizens who are in the middle east. In terms of the use of various suits and gas masks, our view is that the best thing for citizens in the area who are concerned is either to leave the area or take other suitable precautions to put themselves in a place of safety. At this point there have been no chemical and biological weapons attacks, and we very much hope that there will be no such attacks.

What recent representations he has made to applicant nations to the European Union about equal rights and safety for their Roma citizens. [104463]

The problems of the Roma community are regularly raised by our embassies in the countries concerned and by the European Commission in its regular progress reports. The UK's EU action plans in the relevant countries include projects in the Roma communities, as do EU pre-accession programmes. Indeed, action plans for Slovakia and Romania were personally launched by the Foreign Secretary last year.

I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging response. Does he agree that it is somewhat ironic that the Roma communities across central and eastern Europe were protected under almost 50 years of communism, but now that those countries have become democracies, those people have tended to become second-class citizens? Particularly in the Slovak and Czech Republics, there is almost an indication that the state is allowing that state of affairs to pertain. May I encourage the Minister to ensure, and ask him to give an assurance, that further representations will be made, particularly to the Slovak and Czech Republics?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and, in doing so, recognise his long-standing interest in this issue, although, his recollection of the rights of Roma citizens under the former communist regimes does not bear any scrutiny or comparison with what actually happened. We will keep pressing the issue and we fund a number of human rights projects and will continue to do so. I also believe that the process of enlargement, adherence to the Copenhagen criteria and the increased economic opportunities that come with enlargement will address the factors that currently force Roma citizens to leave their countries.

Is not the Minister right to say that the enlargement process has had a very positive effect on the member designate countries, which have a better understanding of this country's concerns about the way in which Roma citizens are treated? In his discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), will he ensure that when the Convention on the Future of Europe is concluded, sufficient protection will be given to the rights of minority groups throughout Europe and, in particular, in the member designate countries?

I believe that the accession process has already led to a significant improvement. Indeed, last year's regular report from the Commission not only highlighted progress that has been made in candidate countries, but, genuinely and legitimately, highlighted areas for further improvement. It is that issue on which we now need to focus. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments about the Convention on the Future of Europe are passed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain).

What recent discussions he ha .s had about reform of the constitution of the United Nations. [104464]

There are ongoing discussions at the United Nations and between member states about a number of UN reform issues. Reform of the United Nations charter requires approval by two thirds of the membership of the UN. Currently, agreement on that issue does not exist. Nevertheless, the UK supports reform of the Security Council to make it more representative of the modern world. In our view, that should include enlargement of both its permanent and non-permanent membership.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people who feel so disappointed that UN support for the current conflict was not achieved are also perplexed about the UN's processes, especially the composition of the Security Council and the use of the veto? Will he assure us that, when the conflict is over, there will be a review of the UN so that it can be reconstituted as a more effective body for resolving conflict in the 21st century?

I share my hon. Friend's frustration at our inability to achieve consensus for a second resolution at the Security Council. We strongly believe that that would have created the best possible circumstances in which to maximise pressure on Saddam Hussein and achieve a peaceful resolution. Nevertheless, we need to examine such issues carefully. It is important to look forwards rather than backwards. We are therefore working for the strongest possible UN involvement in any post-conflict Iraq.

The present UN constitution allows for both mandatory and non-mandatory Security Council resolutions. Do the Government accept the possibility that, at the end of the road map process, there will be a need for a mandatory Security Council resolution to impose a settlement in the middle east peace process?

It is important not to rule out that option because it may be needed, depending on the progress that is made.

My hon. Friend has just said that he seeks enlargement of the number of permanent members on the Security Council. That could lead to problems unless the veto procedure is changed at the same time. Will my hon. Friend outline any plans or proposals for changing the veto procedure if the number of permanent members on the Security Council is increased?

It is important to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council so that it properly represents the modern world. However, were that to be agreed and implemented, we have no plans to change the number of nations that currently have the veto.

If we are to be realistic about the UN's structure, it should reflect where power lies and try to combine that with a measure of consensus in its decision making. Will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister join me in strongly rejecting the view of those who have reacted with glee to the UN's problems in the past couple of months? Such gloating is thoroughly irresponsible and serves only to fragment world opinion further.

Will the Minister confirm that, in addition to discussing UN reform, its future and authority is best assured by all of us pressing for the implementation of existing resolutions in an even-handed way, especially in Gaza and the Palestinian west bank?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the latter point. I also agree that no one should view with glee what has happened to the UN recently. The UN is not perfect: on several occasions in the past 50 years, we have failed to reach consensus on crucial issues. Nevertheless, it is the only institution within which it is possible to create consensus among peaceful nations to enhance our security. I therefore believe that we should look forwards, not backwards.

What recent discussions he has had with his French, German and Spanish counterparts on the Convention on the Future of Europe. [104465]

We submitted a joint paper with Spain on 28 February to the Convention. The Government continue to work closely with their European partners, including France, Germany and Spain, on the Convention on the Future of Europe on a wide range of issues.

My hon. Friend knows that, notwithstanding the debacle over the French use of the veto last week, many of us hope that there will be a significant rapprochement with France in the coming months, especially if we are to achieve outcomes in the Convention. However, will he put paid to one French idea that appears to be burbling around in the mind of the President of the Convention, namely that the preamble to the constitution should explicitly refer to Christian heritage in Europe? Surely that would be profoundly unhelpful at this time.

My hon. Friend, with his background in holy orders, is right to ask the question.

"Let us render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Mr. Giscard d'Estaing has raised the possibility of a reference to religion in the preamble, but that does not reflect the French Government's view. My hon. Friend knows that their views on such matters are secular. Although we acknowledge the enormous contribution of Christian, Jewish, Moorish and Muslim heritage to our common Europe, the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate in a multi-religious, multicultural. Europe to include a specific reference to one faith in the constitution of the Convention.

The Minister will know that the latest tranche of draft articles includes provision for a European public prosecutor. As the Government are apparently opposed to that, but have been very weak and timid in making their objections clear so far in the Convention, will they on this occasion make clear beyond doubt to the Convention and to other member states that we will not accept a treaty containing provision for a European public prosecutor? If the Minister is clear now, that will avoid tears later. Will he begin to stand up for British interests, and make clear that the Government have bottom lines that we will not cross?

That has been clear for a number of years—and I was not aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Haul) was a weak and timid person.

I cannot speak for myself in this matter, but the Government's view is plain, and is shared by a number of other Governments. We believe that the establishment of a European public prosecutor as such is not the right way forward. We must, however, find serious mechanisms for the combating of European fraud, and for combating trans-frontier crime. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will turn his mind to that, as one of our parliamentary representatives on the Convention.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is now a need for a European constitution, and also a need for a clear statement of the European Union's objectives in a form that people can understand?

My hon. Friend is right. I recommend an excellent article in The Economist entitled "The European Constitution" and penned by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Given that the impetus for the Convention was, to a great extent, the enlargement process, does the Minister agree that the accession states should have not just full rights of participation at the Convention and the intergovernmental conference, but full and equal voting rights at the IGC? Would that not reassure those countries greatly, especially after the hollowness of a common European foreign policy has been made so obvious by the disgraceful and patronising attack on them by President Chirac?

As so often, the hon. Gentleman spoilt a good first point by including yesterday's insults in his closing remarks. It was clear from the treaty of Nice that the new European Union member states would play a full and a voting part in the IGC.

Does my hon. Friend feel able to say that the extent of agreement in the European Council on the appropriate role of the United Nations in post-conflict Iraq and the middle east peace process, as well as the shared commitment to Macedonia, point encouragingly to the healing of the diplomatic wounds in Europe and the possibility of creating a European common foreign and security policy? Does he agree, however, that it would not be appropriate now or in the foreseeable future for such a policy to be subject to qualified majority voting or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, as the new EU draft constitution appears to propose?

Come back to us!

My right hon. Friend—whose contribution from the Labour Benches we welcome—makes a good point. I cannot see how foreign policy issues can be linked with the European Court of Justice, and I think that foreign policy will remain principally intergovernmental. I think, however, that in the new European Union of 25 states those that wanted a robust line to be taken on Saddam Hussein would have enjoyed a comfortable majority.

If he will make a statement on Anglo-French bilateral diplomatic relations. [104466]

Relations with France are close, but could be better. We continue to work with France on a range of important issues.

Over the weekend Le Figaro reported further critical attacks on Britain by Mr. Chirac, but the Government are right to try to strengthen ties with not just the old but the new Europe. What, though, will be the cost of United Kingdom membership of the new expanded European Union of 25 states that the Minister mentioned a few moments ago? Has the Foreign Office conducted any analysis? Is he aware that the United States Government believe that, taking into account indirect costs, that cost could be as high as £30 billion a year—equivalent to about 80 new hospitals in Britain every year? Has the Foreign Office conducted such an analysis, and if not will it do so?

rose—

Order. The Minister should not answer that question. I call Mr. Shaun Woodward.

Despite the considerable differences and problems, alluded to by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), with the French concerning military intervention in Iraq, does my hon. Friend agree that in fact, there are substantial areas of agreement with the French in foreign and security policy? Nowhere is this more important than in seeking a peaceful resolution between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and in the implementation of the road map for peace.

I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point, because on a range of key foreign policy issues such as the Balkans and the middle east, and on others concerning the idea of Europe as a partnership of nation states, we are much closer to the position of the French than some of our other European partners. If I may answer the initial question, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Office has of course analysed the cost of enlargement of the European Union. We believe that it will add about €1.75 billion —

Order. I told the Minister not to answer that question. I call the Reverend Martin Smyth.

When the Minister said that we are really close to France, I thought for a moment that he was speaking of the tunnel. On our links with the European Union and the question of the European governor of the European Central Bank, when will France come up with a viable candidate, rather than prolonging the agony that they have entered into in the past? Is the Minister satisfied that we constantly defend our rights with the same determination that the French defend theirs?

The question of the next governor of the European Central Bank will have to be resolved soon. Jean-Claude Trichet, the French candidate, certainly has the support of the City. He is a most austere and rigorous monetarist, and he is not lax on fiscal matters. He is stern on monetary matters—in fact, he is the very model of an Anglo-Saxon banker, even if he is French.

What plans he has to meet representatives of the German Government to discuss British-German diplomatic relations. [104467]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer last Friday at the European Council. I had good talks with him, and a brief conversation with the German Chancellor. This follows my extensive meetings with Government and Bundestag representatives in Berlin last Monday.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that at this stage we work very closely with our German friends in putting together a new UN resolution on Iraq? I hope that we will move away from the rhetoric that has characterised much of the discussion of our European partners in the past week. We must rebuild the UN consensus, and could not our relationship with Germany be at the heart of putting forward a new UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq?

That is very much the wish in Berlin, and I hope that some of the rhetoric directed against this Government from certain of our partners and friends in Europe also dries up, because this has not been a one-way street. However, my hon. Friend is right: we must work very closely with Germany, and we welcome cooperation on ideas about a post-Saddam Iraq. We can put behind us, or leave to historians, analysis of diplomatic wranglings at the UN, and start to build a happier future for that troubled part of the world, in collaboration with Germany and other partners.

Can the Minister make it clear to his counterpart in the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Germany that the continued presence of British troops in the federal republic will be called into question in this country unless the German Government, through diplomacy and their conduct of foreign affairs, do not give encouragement, at least, to the Queen's enemies in Iraq?

That is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. German military facilities are at the full disposition of the coalition and Germany military units are in the Gulf to help, in case of attack with chemical and biological weapons.

I do not greatly object to the anti-militarist feeling that animates people of all political persuasions in Germany. I would have liked to see a different diplomatic course from the German Government in the last few months, but what they did was a response to promises made at elections by all parties, and I will have no truck with any anti-German feeling or with remarks about our troops being anything other than fully welcome in the Federal Republic of Germany.

In the important discussions on diplomatic relations between my hon. Friend and our German counterparts, will the emphasis be on our Atlanticism or our Europeanism?

Both.