With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council, which I attended in Brussels on 20 and 21 March, and report also on the conflict in Iraq.

This meeting was the fourth of the special summits on economic reform in the European Union but, of course, the summit was dominated by Iraq. I should like to place on the record what I know will be the heartfelt gratitude of the entire House for the valour of British servicemen and women. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I send the deepest sympathy of the Government—and again, I hope, of the whole House—to the families of those who have died. They gave their lives for our safety. They had the courage to lake the ultimate risk in the service of their country, and of those who value freedom everywhere in the world. We owe them an immense debt. I would like also to extend my condolences, and those of our nation, to the families of the American personnel who have sadly been lost in recent days.

We are now just four days into this conflict. It is worth restating our central objectives. They are to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes, but in achieving these objectives we have also embraced other considerations. We want to carry out this campaign in a way that minimises the suffering of ordinary Iraqi people, brutalised by Saddam; to safeguard the wealth of the country for the future prosperity of the people; and to make this a war not of conquest, but of liberation. For this reason, we did not, as some expected, mount a heavy bombing campaign first, followed by a land campaign. Instead, land forces were immediately in action, securing oil installations and gaining strategic assets and retaining them, not destroying them. The air campaign has been precisely targeted. Of course, there will have been civilian casualties, but we have done all that we humanly can to keep them to a minimum. Water and electricity supplies are being spared. The targets are the infrastructure, command and control of Saddam's regime, not of the civilian population. We are making massive efforts to clear lines of supply for humanitarian aid, although the presence of mines is hindering us.

By contrast, the nature of Saddam's regime is all too plainly expressed in its actions. The oil wealth was mined, and deep-mined at that. Had we not struck quickly, Iraq's future wealth would even now be burning away. Prisoners are being paraded in defiance of all international conventions. Those who dare speak criticism of the regime are being executed.

Now let me now give the House some detail, if I may, of the military campaign. In the south, our aim was to secure the key oil installations on the al-Faw peninsula; to take the port of Umm Qasr, the only Iraqi port to the outside world; and to render Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, ineffective as a basis for military operations by Saddam against coalition troops. In the west, in the desert, our aim is to prevent Saddam from using it as a base for hostile external aggression. In the north, our objective is to protect people in the Kurdish autonomous zone, to secure the northern oil fields, and to ensure that the north cannot provide a base for Saddam's resistance. Then, of course, the vital goal is to reach Baghdad as swiftly as possible, thus bringing the end of the regime closer.

I hope that the House will understand that there is a limit to how much I can say about the detail of our operations, especially those involving special forces, but with that caveat, at present British and US troops have taken the al-Faw peninsula; that is now secure. The southern oil installations are under coalition control. The port of Umm. Qasr, despite continuing pockets of resistance, is under allied control, but the waterway essential for humanitarian aid may be blocked by mines and will take sonic days to sweep. Basra is surrounded and cannot be used as an Iraqi base, but in Basra there are pockets of Saddam's most fiercely loyal security services, who are holding out. They are contained but still able to inflict casualties on our troops, so we are proceeding with caution. Basra international airport has been made secure. The western desert is largely secure. In the north, there have been air attacks on regime targets in Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit. We have been in constant contact with the Turkish Government and the Kurdish authorities to urge calm.

Meanwhile, coalition forces led by the American 5th Corps are on the way to Baghdad. As we speak, they are about 60 miles south of Baghdad, near Karbala. A little way from there they will encounter the Medina division of the republican guard, which is defending the route to Baghdad. That will plainly be a crucial moment. Coalition forces are also advancing on al-Kut, in the east of Iraq. The two main bridges over the Euphrates south of Baghdad have been taken intact. That is of critical significance.

The air campaign has attacked Iraqi military installations, the centres of Saddam's regime and command and control centres. More than 5,000 sorties have taken place, thousands of Iraqi soldiers have surrendered and still more have simply left the field, their units disintegrating. But there are those, closest to Saddam, who are resisting and will resist strongly. They are the elite who are hated by the local population and have little to lose. There are bound, therefore, to be difficult days ahead, but the strategy and its timing are proceeding according to plan.

At the European Council, there were, of course, deep divisions over the coalition action. That is well known—but it is not that all of European opinion is one way. On the contrary, there was both understanding and support for the British position from many nations represented at the Council and near unanimous endorsement from the 10 accession countries which joined our Council on Friday afternoon. In any event, whatever the disagreements about the conflict itself, Europe came together to set out clearly its wishes and responsibilities in post-conflict Iraq.

The Council agreed the need to be active in the humanitarian field, to ensure that the oil revenues are held for the Iraqi people by the United Nations and to ensure that the oil-for-food programme continues. The Council further agreed that the UN Security Council should give the UN a strong mandate for post-conflict Iraq and make sure that the new Administration is one that is representative, careful of the human rights of the Iraqi people and allows the people to live at peace inside Iraq and with their neighbours.

In addition, the Council stressed the vital importance of the middle east peace process and the publication of the road map drawn up by the US, EU, Russia and the UN, and now endorsed by us all. I reported on the talks that we had had both with the US Administration and the Palestinian Authority. We welcomed the appointment of Abu Mazen as Palestinian Prime Minister. I also welcomed the US intention to publish the road map for peace as soon as the Prime Minister and his Government are in place.

I know that it seems somewhat incongruous and out of place, but I should say one word on the conventional subject matter of the summit. Although overshadowed by Iraq, this summit on economic reform regained some momentum. In the last few months, energy liberalisation, a single Europe-wide patent and a single Europe sky policy have all been agreed. An employment taskforce, due to report on ways to cut unemployment without generating new regulation, was also agreed. That marks progress, though much remains to be done.

To return to the conflict, there are, of course, difficulties that have arisen, tragedies and accidents. We grieve for the lives lost. That is in the nature of war. And it is in the nature of today's instant, live reporting of war, that people see the pain and blood in vivid and shocking terms. However, it is worth recalling the nature of what is not always apparent and what we do not see: an Iraqi nation, degraded and brutalised by decades of barbarous rule; a country that is potentially rich but whose people go hungry and whose children die needlessly from malnutrition and disease; and a regime for which repression, torture, the abuse of human rights and possession of weapons of mass destruction define its very nature. That is why we must achieve our objectives. Saddam will go and this regime will be replaced. The Iraqi people will be helped to a better future. The weapons of mass destruction—for which a peaceful Iraq has no use—will be eliminated. That we will encounter more difficulties and anxious moments in the days ahead is certain. But no less certain, indeed more so, is coalition victory.

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the brave servicemen who have lost their lives, to their families who now mourn, and to those who continue to put their lives at risk. I also send my condolences to the families of the journalists who have also lost their loved ones. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the US servicemen who have put their lives at risk and whose families, in many cases, now wonder about their future.

I thank the Prime Minister for his words about the road map, and for the importance that he places on assessing and addressing the matter. As he has said on a number of occasions, it holds the key to future stability in that region.

The war was never going to be easy, but the cause, I believe, is just. Despite the tragic losses of individual lives and the resistance that has been encountered, I agree that we must keep sight of the bigger picture. The pace of the advance towards Baghdad has been rapid. The capture and preservation of the oil wells has been a notable success, and the seizure of the bridges intact has been vital. The objectives, as the Prime Minister says, remain the same. However, there remain a number of questions.

What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the impact that the campaign has had on the cohesion of the Iraqi regime? In particular, given Saddam Hussein's television broadcast and some questions about whether that was live or recorded, what is the latest assessment of Saddam Hussein, his sons and the regional commanders in Iraq? In terms of strategy, can the Prime Minister confirm that the coalition is continuing to isolate towns to protect the civilian population, and that there is no change? Specifically, with reference to Basra, there are serious concerns about the shortages of water and electricity in the city. What steps does he believe can be taken to put that right?

The treatment of coalition prisoners of war was degrading and a clear breach of the Geneva convention. That gross spectacle yet again shows the nature of Saddam's regime and must be considered a war crime. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House and the British people that the perpetrators will be brought to justice? Is it not vital that in our treatment of prisoners of war, we continue to show that we have come to free the people of Iraq, not to conquer them?

There is continued concern at the talk of Turkish troop movements in northern Iraq. The situation is extremely delicate, I am aware, and there are reports that the Iraqi Kurds are diverting forces towards the Turkish border. Does the Prime Minister agree that a major Turkish incursion into northern Iraq would be wholly unacceptable? What assurances has he sought and received from the Turkish authorities that that will not happen? Is there any prospect of Turkish forces being placed under coalition command?

On the humanitarian crisis, can the Prime Minister tell the House how soon aid can be deployed in Iraq and who will be in charge of the delivery of that aid? Will he also confirm that in the early stages of delivery, the armed forces' participation is essential? Perhaps he can confirm that HMS Sir Galahad is standing by with large amounts of humanitarian aid for delivery as soon as the port of Umm Qasr is cleared. The House should note that the more successful operation has been carried out by American troops under British command.

At a time of heightened concern about national security, the Prime Minister will be aware that there is currently no Minister of State at the Home Office with responsibility for security services and home defence. When will he replace the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)? At this vital time, when will the new ambassador to Washington officially take up his post?

The Prime Minister referred to the European Council. I have one question. Does he now accept the need to reassess fundamentally the concept of a common foreign and security policy? Surely now is the time for a new Europe rooted in its nation states, not the deeper and deeper process in which we are engaged.

The days ahead may well be difficult. The Prime Minister assured us that our objectives remain clear: ridding Iraq completely of weapons of mass destruction and the end of Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime. Our forces out there will carry out tasks that we know will place them in great danger, and I have no doubt that they will carry them out with efficiency, bravery and success. For our part, it is essential that we send our forces the clearest message that they have our unflagging support.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general message; obviously, I am in agreement with him and thank him for his support at this difficult time. I should like to express my own condolences to the family of Terry Lloyd, and to those of the others who lost their lives. Terry Lloyd was a brave and distinguished correspondent. Such people run considerable risks in trying to inform the outside world of what is happening.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, obviously, about the road map. In respect of questions about Saddam and leading members of the regime, the truthful position is that we cannot be sure whether the broadcasts were pre-recorded. Some of them appear to be dated, but there is not an exact science in this. At the present time, we simply do not know for certain.

As a result of the arrangements that are being made by Red Crescent and help from British engineers, we should get back 40 per cent. of the water supplies in Basra by Sunday—within the next few days, at any rate. We are certainly doing everything that we can to protect the essential infrastructure while, obviously, attacking the regime's command and control centres.

In relation to Turkey, any incursion would be entirely unacceptable. That has been made very clear to the Turkish Government and military. I believe that they have understood those messages, which have been given not just by ourselves but by the United States of America. Of course, there are no Turkish troops under coalition command.

The provision of humanitarian aid depends in part on how soon we can clear the waterway. The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that HMS Sir Galahad is standing by. It has a very large amount of humanitarian aid and provision on board. I very much hope that in the next few days we will be able to achieve that, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will say some more about that in a moment, following her talks in Washington.

The Home Secretary has taken personal charge of home security. The person who is to be the new US ambassador is presently my adviser, so I would prefer him not to take up that post immediately, if that is all right. I have a lot of use for him here.

I am afraid that the one point on which the right hon. Gentleman and I will disagree is the European common foreign and security policy. What he really means when he says that we should re-evaluate it is that we should get rid of it. That would not be wise. In any event, if Britain opted out of the policy that would not get rid of it. It would just go forward without British participation. We can return to the argument in later and more peaceful times, but I register it as at least one point of disagreement.

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I extend our deepest sympathies to the families of the service personnel and of journalists who have lost their lives. They were courageous people carrying out their tasks in the most extremely difficult circumstances in a war zone. Let us hope that service personnel who are missing will be found safely and be able to return home in due course.

We on these Benches last week voted against this war, but we have to accept the democratic decision of the House. What everybody in the country surely wants is a minimum amount of casualties—first and foremost among our own service personnel, but equally among innocent Iraqi civilians with whom, as a country, we have never had any quarrel, and who have suffered so much under the totalitarian regime that is Saddam Hussein and his cohorts.

The Government said from the outset that the humanitarian aims of the mission are as important as the military ones. Therefore, equally urgent thought needs to be given to the task of reconstruction once the immediate hostilities are over. Does the Prime Minister agree that the best way to gain the confidence of the Iraqi people and of the region is for the United Nations to take overall responsibility for that reconstruction course? By entrusting the reconstruction of Iraq to the UN, does he agree that we would have the opportunity to begin the reconstruction of the international order, which has suffered so much damage diplomatically in recent weeks, and of the European Union, to which he referred in his statement?

May I ask the Prime Minister some specific questions? First, it is clear that the confidence of our air crews depends on the knowledge that awful mistakes such as those that led to the shooting down of the RAF Tornado have been rectified. Can the Prime Minister say more about the steps that are in hand to prevent that from happening?

Secondly, has there been any recognition at all from the Iraqi regime—probably not—that its behaviour towards prisoners of war is in flagrant disregard of the Geneva convention and is utterly unacceptable on the international stage?

On the humanitarian aspects of the crisis, within the past hour Kofi Annan described the position in Basra as being on the verge of "a humanitarian disaster". What further steps can we take at this point to help to alleviate the plight of the citizens in that city and to enable coalition forces to deliver the humanitarian aid that is so urgently needed?

We all hope that this conflict will be concluded as swiftly and as successfully as possible, but if we are to win the peace we must repair the damage not only to the infrastructure of Iraq, but to the international order, by which we mean the Legitimacy of the United Nations.

First, I should correct one piece of information that I gave earlier, which is relevant to the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, 40 per cent. of the water in Basra was reconnected yesterday—last Sunday. We are working on making sure that the rest is reconnected over the coming days. Obviously, we shall get the humanitarian aid in as quickly as we possibly can, but there is a problem because apparently the waterways are mined.

In relation to casualties, as I said, we are doing our level best to minimise civilian casualties. One reason is that it is important that we make it clear to the Iraqi people that our quarrel is not with them—it is with the regime of Saddam. To a far greater extent than in any previous conflict, we have tried to make sure that the targets are carefully chosen and that we do everything that we possibly can—consistent, obviously, with achieving our military objectives—to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. These words are obvious, but it is necessary to utter them: any claims made by the Iraqi authorities should be treated with some scepticism.

In relation to reconstruction, of course we want it to be authorised by the United Nations. Let me emphasise again that when we talk of reconstruction we mean the reconstruction of the country following Saddam, not reconstruction to do with allied war campaigns. That reconstruction—that rebuilding of Iraq—will be a lot easier if it has proper United Nations authority. I hope very much that people can come together and make the system work. That will be an important part of bringing the international community back together at the end of this.

In relation to combat ID and the issues raised about the tragic shooting down of the RAF Tornado plane, there have been significant improvements but we are looking urgently at the lessons we can learn from that incident. As for the Geneva convention and the way that the American prisoners of war were paraded, that is, I am afraid, typical of Saddam's regime. It is a very good reminder of why it is important for Iraq and for the wider world that the regime is removed.

Our condolences go to the families and friends of those in our own forces and others who have died in this conflict to secure a peaceful Iraq. My right hon. Friend spoke of the European Council coming together to look at post-conflict Iraq, but what assurance has he received that the United Nations will indeed be in charge of the humanitarian aspects after the conflict, and that the road towards democracy for Iraq will be achieved through and with UN support?

Those were indeed the commitments that the European Council made—that we should ensure that the UN is involved not only on the humanitarian side, but in the authority that succeeds Saddam's regime in Iraq. Of course, it will be easier if Europe comes together and works together on that. It is very important, if we want to get that United Nations resolution—as we do—that whatever differences there have been over the conflict itself are set aside in the interests of ensuring that the United Nations is fully involved in the post-conflict situation in Iraq, and that that develops in a way that has the support not only, obviously, of the coalition forces and of the Iraqi people, but of the wider international community.

The Prime Minister has already referred to the tragic deaths over the weekend of the pilot and navigator of the Tornado from RAF Marham in my constituency, and the House will certainly want to echo his sympathy for their families. I am sure that he can imagine the sense of shock at the idea that some kind of technological failure caused the Tornado to be hit by friendly fire in the form of a Patriot missile. If it was a technological failure, that is clearly an enormously serious matter. The Prime Minister may well not be able to comment in any more detail than he already has about what is being done to look into that, but if he could it would give a great deal of reassurance to people in the RAF and in the wider community.

I again express my condolences to the right hon. Lady's constituents for their tragic loss. The planes have of course been fitted with the latest combat ID equipment—that is important. We are, however, looking to see what lessons can be learned, because something has gone wrong and we must make sure that it does not happen again. That gives rise to issues not only on our side, but on the American side. We are looking at the matter urgently, and I assure the right hon. Lady and her constituents that the moment that we have something precise and accurate to say to people about it, we will say it first to them, then tell the wider world.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this action is not about giving the US a footprint in the middle east, but about getting a better Iraq, a safer Britain and a safer world?

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that those are indeed the objectives.

I thank the Prime Minister very warmly for his fitting tribute to my constituent, Terry Lloyd, which I know will be greatly appreciated by his widow, Lynn, and their children, Chelsey and Oliver. Given his outstanding work over two decades in Halabja, the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Lebanon and Northern Ireland, which displayed in each case a combination of extreme professionalism and personal courage, Does the Prime Minister agree that Terry Lloyd was a credit to his family, to his profession and to his country, and that his loss will be mourned by decent people everywhere?

Again, I agree entirely with that. I extend my condolences to Terry Lloyd's family in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He was someone of huge experience in such situations who reported with very great bravery and distinction. His loss will be felt not only in this country, but throughout the world, because he was immensely respected in many different parts of the world.

I echo what was said about Terry Lloyd. I, too, knew him; we met in various parts of the world at various times. He was a very good reporter and a very brave one. I am very sorry for everybody who died this weekend, irrespective of whether—in the words of the Oscar winner at the weekend—they believed in God or in Allah. We all hope for a speedy resolution and a peaceful Iraq in future.

This morning, I was phoned by an Iraqi friend who lives in this country and has relatives living in Baghdad. She said that she gets very annoyed with hearing commentators say, "Everybody expected the Allied troops to be cheered when they arrived." She said, "How can you cheer when you've got a republican guard living in your house?" There has to be a sense of reality in that respect.

What my hon. Friend says on this subject is, as ever, extremely wise. Many of the local population still live in a great deal of fear from Saddam's security services. Let us be honest: because of the history of the past 12 years, they cannot yet be sure in their own minds that we mean what we say. We do indeed mean what we say. We will remove Saddam from power and liberate the country. However, given the history, it is hardly surprising if people are very circumspect about showing their feelings about the regime until that regime has actually gone.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, given the Americans' difficulties in getting the 4th Mechanised Division in through Turkey, the contribution of British forces is even more significant than it otherwise would have been? Will he extend to the coalition forces the congratulations of the whole House on the remarkable speed with which they have pressed ahead in the north? It has been a military as well as a logistical miracle thus far. Will he assure the House that necessary reserves have been stood up in case they should be required?

I can confirm all of that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on the importance of the British forces—particularly after what has happened in Turkey—and on the remarkable advance of, I think, some 280 miles inside the country. It is astonishing that they have done that in just a few days. Of course, we will ensure that the proper reserves are in place.

This morning, I spoke to a worried mother whose son is currently serving in the Gulf. She spoke of her anger and dismay when, this morning, in trying to send a package to her son, she was charged nearly £16. Ten years ago, when she did the same for an elder son, the service was free. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will consider the pricing policy to ensure that mothers, daughters, wives and husbands across the country can send welfare packages free of charge to service personnel?

The Defence Secretary has just told me that we are trying to put arrangements in place to allow that to happen. I will look into the matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend. We will try to ensure that arrangements are in place as soon as possible.

On behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, may I associate myself fully and sincerely with what the Prime Minister has said in tribute and in condolence? It has been encouraging to hear the Prime Minister mention three times the need to protect the Kurdish community to the north of Iraq. I urge him to consider a federal system for post-conflict Iraq, to protect those boundaries and those people.

The precise nature of any Government for the whole of Iraq will have to be considered carefully at a later time. The Kurdish community in the north, because it has been protected by British and American pilots over the past 12 years, has achieved a remarkable degree of autonomy. It has achieved at least something of the beginnings of democracy. As a result of that, and as a result of the way that the area is governed free from Saddam, that community actually has a far better record on things such as the poverty of its people, the building of schools and hospitals, and the reduction of child mortality. We must ensure that we retain the gains that have been made by that community. However, as I say, the precise nature of the government of Iraq will be a matter for discussion at a later point.

I deeply regret all the loss of life and all the injuries that have been caused over the past five days. Has the Prime Minister studied the footage from al-Jazeera, which went in to report on the 50 or so civilians who were killed in Basra after the bombing or shelling? There were terrible pictures of women and children—one child with half its head blown out. Just before I came into the Chamber, I heard a report on the radio that we are shelling Basra yet again. How does the Prime Minister think that we can protect civilians when that kind of thing is happening?

First, let me say to my hon. Friend that we regret any loss of civilian life in Iraq. I think that most people would agree that we have done everything that we can in the targeting to ensure that we minimise the dangers of that. However, of course, there will be innocent civilians who die in any war; that is why we have struggled so long to ensure that Saddam disarmed peacefully.

Although the pictures are not as vivid and not as shocking, the fact is that people have been dying the entire time in Iraq under Saddam. We will do everything that we can to make this conflict as swift as possible and to minimise civilian casualties. As I say, every civilian casualty is one that we regret. However, we are doing all that we humanly can to keep them to a minimum.

I welcome what the Prime Minister said in answer to an earlier question about the adequacy of reserves, but does he agree that the length of the supply line makes the coalition forces very vulnerable to ambush and other guerrilla forms of insurgency, and that may well extend to service personnel engaged in delivering humanitarian aid along those supply lines in future? Will he assure the House that he is satisfied that not only the British reinforcement position but the American reinforcement position can ensure that those crucial long supply lines are fully protected, possibly for an extended period?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the length of the supply line. All I can say to him—without going into detail because that would not be sensible—is that the issue of force protection is one that we visit and revisit constantly with the military commanders, and I am satisfied that they are doing everything that they can to ensure that those lines of supply are secure.

May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on the de- mining of Umm Qasr? Is it the case that that work cannot start yet because there are still pockets of resistance; or is it the intention to start that work very soon? Obviously, the sooner it starts, the sooner we can begin to deliver our promise on humanitarian relief.

As I understand it, the position is really this: it is not the pockets of resistance, which are fairly limited now in Umm Qasr; it is more to do with the fact that there is the prospect of mines being in the waterways approaching the port. We cannot be sure exactly how many are there at the moment. That is what we are investigating, and at this stage—obviously, before we see what we are up against—we cannot give a definitive time, but we hope that we will be able to get the humanitarian aid moving in the next few days.

Although we clearly have to wait a little longer to decide Iraq's long-term future—I hope, with the UN's involvement—would it not help to gain greater international acceptance of our actions and encourage the Iraqi people to surrender wherever possible if the Prime Minister were a bit more specific about what he sees immediately after the war? It is difficult to believe that he has not already carefully considered who should be part of any interim Administration, representing Iraqi exiles and people presently in Iraq, so could he not tell the House a little more about how he envisages Iraq being governed for the first few weeks and months while a new constitution and Government are put in place?

Obviously, we have to be careful of being too specific on that—otherwise it renders somewhat nugatory the discussion that we will have in the UN about exactly what the form of government should be—but we can lay down certain principles very clearly. It should be as representative as possible; it should move Iraq along the road to democracy as much as possible, given the history and the circumstances; it should protect human rights; and it should protect Iraq's territorial integrity. At this stage, before we have discussions with the UN and other allies, I cannot be more specific than that, but. I believe that most people in Iraq can see the basis of how Iraq could be governed differently, and they can do so not least because, in the northern part—protected, as I say, by British and American pilots—a different Iraq has already taken shape.

Although I am very clear on the need for this action, may I put on record my strong opposition to the use of cluster bombs, as experience suggests that they are contrary to our stated aim of causing the minimum possible civilian casualties? If the Prime Minister raises that inconsistency with the President, could he also diplomatically point out that if the Americans were not so flagrantly breaching the rights of prisoners of war captured in Afghanistan, their current justified outrage for our own POWs would be less inconsistent and more effective in securing their safe return?

On the latter point, the people at Guantanamo bay are not combat troops in the service of a country. However, I have said on many occasions before that there will have to come a point when the situation at Guantanamo bay comes to an end, although it is also true to say that information is still being provided by people there that is of importance.

In relation to cluster bombs, I will not comment on what munitions we may use, except to say that I am personally satisfied that whatever munitions we are using are in accordance with international law.

May I commend the Prime Minister on not only his brave and courageous action, but his statement this afternoon? Will he confirm whether it is true, as has been claimed in a number of tabloid newspapers, that a chemical plant has been discovered by coalition forces? Secondly, will he confirm whether Turkish troops have entered Iraq from the north? If he can do so, I am sure that a great many people will be reassured.

On the latter point, we have no reports of that in respect of Turkish troops. In respect of the chemical plant, that is still being investigated. As soon as we have news on that, we will state it.

Millions of people at the weekend will have heard Donald Rumsfeld opine:

"We are not bombing Baghdad".

I therefore ask the Prime Minister: who is? Are we?

I think that people know that the campaign that we have conducted has of course included targets in Baghdad, but they have been targets designed to weaken the regime, not destroy centres of the Iraqi population.

The Prime Minister rightly drew attention to the courage and professionalism of our armed forces. In particular, I want to draw his attention to 16 Air Assault Brigade, the 3,000 troops from the Colchester garrison who are currently in the Gulf. He has also drawn attention to the concerns, anxieties and worries that wives and other dependants have back home. May I offer an invitation to him to visit Colchester garrison for a two-way exchange with families so that he can reassure them and benefit from their response, too? I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence for the briefing that he has just given.

First, of course I admire and applaud the work that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others from that garrison are doing. I cannot give any commitments as to when I may visit, but I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence is due to visit next week.

Now that the international rule of law has been replaced by the law of the jungle, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, when he met President Chirac at the European Council, he told him that most of the British people dissociate themselves from the xenophobic insults that have been hurled at France by some of his Ministers in recent weeks?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have a certain fondness for France, so I would not join in any of those insults either in relation to France or the French people. He mentioned the law of the jungle: if he wants an example of the law of the jungle, he should look at the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Many of those who opposed war, including me, were worried about inflaming Arab nationalism and Muslim fundamentalism. There was always a concern that such people would hole themselves up in towns and cause enormous difficulties to our troops. Indeed, that appears to be happening in Umm Qasr, a town of only 4,000 people, whereas Baghdad has millions. What is the Prime Minister's strategy? Will he be fair and honest with the British people and warn them that while we all hope that this regime will haul up the white flag, a long war of attrition is possible? We cannot defeat this regime by staying on the outskirts of the cities or by staying in the desert. We must go into the centres. It may be wiser to warn the British people now that if we are to win the war, we must do that.

On the latter point, I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that we are about four days into the conflict at present, and I think that the progress of the troops has been remarkable, despite the tragedies and the accidents that necessarily happen in such a situation. As for inflaming Arab nations, I repeat what I have often said on this subject: I do not believe that the Arab nations will be inflamed by the removal of Saddam; I do, however, believe that they will be hugely encouraged by our even-handedness if they see us proceed genuinely with the middle east peace process.

Can my right hon. Friend say how long he thinks it will be before the much-needed road map to peace is published? Is it a matter of days or weeks?

I very much hope that it is a matter of days, but it depends on the new Palestinian Prime Minister appointing his Cabinet, which will take him some time. As soon as that is ready, the road map will be given to him—that is the commitment of the President of the United States and myself, and is indeed what he himself wants.

Would the Prime Minister dissociate himself from the anti-French rhetoric that has been coming out of his Government in recent weeks? Does he recognise that, although he and the Government may disapprove of French foreign policy, the French have a perfect right to take a different view of the world? Will he instead reserve his condemnation for those who have written or drafted the European constitution, which seeks to impose a single foreign and security policy on all member states

"who shall actively and unreservedly support"

it

"in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."

That is not a harmless fantasy—it will attempt to impose binding obligations on the Government and the House, contrary to our interests.

First, I can respond to the right hon. Gentleman's stout defence of French policy, or at least their right to have a policy. I entirely agree—of course, the French are entitled to have a point of view different from ours, but we are entitled to point out why we were unable-to secure a second United Nations resolution. On the common foreign and security policy, I do not agree, for the reasons that I gave earlier. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the agreement that we secured, there is no question of British forces being committed in any European defence effort without the express permission in each individual instance of the British Government.

Turning to the European Council, clearly, the European Union agenda is much wider than Iraq. Does my right hon. Friend have any fears that the divisions and bitterness on Iraq will spill over and sour areas in which we have considerable interest, such as the Balkans, and asylum and immigration? Does he have any fears, for example, that the French will be less than helpful in respect of a new UN Security Council resolution on reconstruction?

I hope, first, that everyone accepts that it is good for the United Nations to be involved in a post-conflict Iraq, so I hope that the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend drew attention will not arise. Secondly, I very much hope that the disagreements here do not in any shape or form contaminate other areas of policy. It is interesting, for example, that we have agreed the European defence mission in Macedonia, which will go ahead as planned. There are real and important issues that will have to be resolved at the end of this, primarily to do with the relationship between Europe and the United States of America. It is right that we have that debate—I do not think that there is any point in masking or hiding the divisions, and it may be time after this to try to sit down and resolve them sensibly.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the air of sadness mixed with pride in the west country over the weekend at the tragic news of the loss of so many Plymouth-based Royal Marines, closely followed by the loss of helicopter pilots from nearby RAF Culdrose. Does he agree that the famous green berets have already played a significant part in the liberation of the Iraqi people, and will he send a personal message and tribute to the families of armed forces in the west country, many of whom are grieving for the loss of their husbands?

The west country has often provided some of our finest forces, and of course I send my deepest condolences to the families of servicemen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who have lost their lives. I hope that they realise that they gave their lives in a just cause, which is important not just for British security but for the safety and security of the world. I am sure that in time we will remember them as people who gave their lives in that way with immense courage.

What are the implications of Saddam Hussein's decision to use civilians as a human shield in the course of this war?

There is no doubt at all that Saddam Hussein will try to do so, as he did in the last Gulf war, which is one reason why it is important that we are careful with the targeting of the air campaign. However, there is a constant risk because there is no doubt at all that there is evidence that where he has troop movements, he will try to surround them in areas of civilian sensitivity. As we have reflected many times before, there are no lengths to which he will not go.

Can the Prime Minister be a little more specific about his discussions with his EU partners at the European Council this weekend? Considering that a quarter of all our overseas aid more than —700 million—goes to the aid budget in the European Union, surely the British taxpayers who have paid that money would expect Britain to make a really good contribution through Europe to the reconstruction of Iraq after the war.

Well, we will do so on our own behalf and also in the European Union. That is why it is important that we work together with the other European countries to get a new UN resolution both on the humanitarian front and elsewhere. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is fair to say that many countries were speaking in our support at the European Council; indeed, virtually all the accession countries did so.

Coalition forces are clearly doing everything in their power to minimise the number of civilian casualties, but we hear stories of non-uniformed armed Iraqis attacking British troops. Does the Prime Minister believe that this is a case of ordinary Iraqis arming themselves or, as seems far more likely, of cowardly Iraqi troops deliberately masquerading as civilians?

It is certainly the latter, as far as we can make out. My hon. Friend is right; these people will be fiercely loyal to the regime, as they will have suppressed the local population. They are armed at the present time and we will do all we can to root them out. Where those pockets of resistance are taking place, they come from the Fedayeen and people who are fiercely loyal to the regime. That is only to be expected, as they are the people, not the Iraqi people or the ordinary Iraqi soldiers, who have most to lose from the departure of Saddam's regime.

With permission, I should like to make a statement about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and the preparations for reconstruction.

I should begin by apologising to the House for the fact that I was unable to be here to respond to the urgent question tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 19 March. I gather that the exchanges were unsatisfactory and I am sorry about that. The reason was that I visited New York and Washington to meet the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the US Administration to try to ensure that arrangements are in place to provide adequate humanitarian relief and that proper preparations are being made for reconstruction in Iraq. I had detailed talks with Kofi Annan and his senior staff, Horst Köhler at the IMF and Jim Wolfensohn at the World Bank. I also met senior officials at the US National Security Council, the United States Agency for International Development and the State Department. There is, I think, a growing will to reunite the international community behind the humanitarian and reconstruction effort in Iraq.

As I made clear in my previous statement, the immediate responsibility for humanitarian support for the people of Iraq in the territory that they occupy lies with the US and UK military forces, in line with their duties under the Geneva and Hague conventions. My Department is providing humanitarian advice to the UK military and the Treasury has agreed to provide £30 million to ensure that UK forces can play their role. The US Administration have made their own plans with the help of USAID.

The UN humanitarian system has also made detailed preparations to resume its role in Iraq and provide for refugees, displaced people and continuing humanitarian needs. The UN employs 1,000 international staff, who have recently been withdrawn from Iraq, and 4,000 local staff in Iraq, and has considerable experience of working in the country. My Department has contributed £13 million to help UN agencies to make preparations to resume their work in Iraq and prepare for the possible consequences of conflict. We are expecting a flash appeal to occur shortly so that they can make their plans operational. We will make an appropriate contribution. The UN will return as soon as it is possible to do so.

We provide regular briefings to non-governmental organisations with the experience and capacity to work in Iraq to enable them to plan to take up their role, and we are urgently assessing their funding requests. We also strongly support the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has a critical role to play as it can operate in the acute conflict phase and is a highly effective and impressive organisation. We have provided £2.5 million for the ICRC's work in Iraq this year and also expect to respond to its appeal, which has just been received.

However, it is important that we are all clear that the most important humanitarian priority is to restore the operation of the oil-for-food programme. To achieve this, there is a need for a new Security Council resolution to give the Secretary-General authority to continue to operate the programme. The Secretary-General is making preparations and we are supporting his efforts to ensure that a suitable resolution is passed.

The scale of the programme is massive. It spends $10 billion a year and is funded by the sale of Iraqi oil. Almost all Iraqis receive assistance from the oil-for-food programme and 16 million are totally dependent on it for their daily survival. I should, however, say that they were given a couple of months supply before the conflict began. People are supplied for the time being, but we need to get the programme up and running very quickly.

The programme provides not only food but water, fuel, medicines and other basic requirements. It is organised through 45,000 local distribution centres, which are all run by Iraqis. If the programme were not reinstated, it would be difficult to avoid a serious humanitarian crisis. We are therefore committed to supporting the Secretary-General of the United Nations in every way possible to get the oil-for-food programme up and running again as rapidly as possible. Talks in New York toward a resolution are positive and we hope that the resolution will be secured so that the international community will be ready to go forward.

At the same time, we are making preparations for the reconstruction of Iraq after Saddam Hussein's regime has gone. It is clear that we can rise to that challenge only if we heal the rifts in the international community and engage all major players in supporting the people of Iraq to rebuild their country. The UN must provide a mandate for the reconstruction effort because that is a precondition for the engagement of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and many countries. Their engagement is key to the reforms that are needed to move the economy forward and to secure an agreement on debt rescheduling and a reparations strategy that will enable the Iraqi economy to recover and grow. I held detailed talks with officials of the UN and the US Administration about how that might be achieved and I am hopeful that we will soon make progress in line with the agreements reached between the Prime Minister and President Bush in the Azores.

As the House is aware, a precondition for the reduction of division, bitterness and anger about double standards in the wider region is progress on the middle east peace process, as the Prime Minister has said. The UK's efforts were crucial in getting President Bush's commitment to publish the road map toward the establishment of a Palestinian state by 2005. That, and Abu Mazen's appointment as the new Palestinian Prime Minister, offer the chance of a way forward. The Government are committed to driving forward the process to bring hope and peace to a new Palestinian state and security to Israel. I discussed the issue with Department of State and National Security Council representatives who said that President Bush was determined to take the commitment forward. The IMF and World Bank also have detailed plans to provide support. We are all aware that full implementation of the road map will not be easy, but it is essential.

There is a sense of regret and dismay among the UN, the IMF and the World Bank about the divisions that were allowed to arise during the international community's handling of the Iraq crisis. There is agreement that our duty now is to minimise the suffering of the people of Iraq during the conflict and to ensure that humanitarian relief and support for reconstruction is in place. That requires the healing of international divisions, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) said, and I hope that a united effort to provide humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq and to support them in reconstructing their country will help to bring that about.

Last, I make it clear that I shall keep the House regularly updated on the humanitarian situation in Iraq. We have provided a response to the International Development Committee report. Hon. Members must understand that i1 has been difficult to provide full information to the House before now because so many international agencies were unwilling to be seen as preparing for conflict and for their plans to be publicly available, although we were in touch with them and knew what was going on. That constraint has now been removed and the House will be kept fully informed. Reports on the humanitarian situation will be placed in the Library of the House on each weekday morning.

I thank the right hon. Lady for coming to the House and for giving me advance sight of her statement. At this time, I do not intend to dwell on the personal difficulties that she has faced over the past few days.

We accept the Secretary of State's apology for her inability to answer our urgent question last week, but why did the Government decide to field a Foreign Office Minister to answer questions on the work of the Department for International Development? It was not an edifying sight when the Secretary of State's deputy had to whisper answers to the hapless Foreign Office Minister.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance to hon. Members on both sides of the House that she will give us opportunities to debate these issues, as well as placing statements in the Library, and, for those of us who enjoy information technology, posting them regularly on the departmental website? We share a sense of disappointment that more progress was not achieved during the meetings in New York, and I would like to ask the Secretary of State how much she attributes the continued difficulty in getting resolutions out of the United Nations to the intransigence of France and to the loss of confidence of the US Administration in the capacity of the United Nations to perform its role. Why has not the Prime Minister persuaded President Bush that there must be a UN resolution authorising the reconstruction of Iraq? What would be the legal position of the Army and our armed forces if no such resolution were passed?

In the absence of a UN lead in co-ordinating the humanitarian relief effort and the plans for post-conflict Iraq, does the Secretary of State accept that it will be the military that delivers the humanitarian aid in the first instance? Is her Department now giving every assistance to our armed forces? Now that she has confirmed that the oil-for-food programme has been suspended, will she tell us how long we have in which to avert a serious crisis? She referred to two months' worth of rations, but, within that, will she make it clear whether we have days or weeks? Given the sheer scale of the relief required, and her news that the coalition forces will not be able to use the oil-for-food programme distribution network, how long will it take to get agreement on this issue? Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether sufficient quantities of food and supplies have been pre-positioned on Iraq's borders for this purpose? It is one thing to have humanitarian stocks on ships moored in the Gulf; it is another to have them where they can easily be brought into the country.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the predicted exodus of refugees from Iraq. Is there any sign of large-scale movement of people to the borders? There are reports that Kurds are fleeing towns in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq and heading north. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a danger that a large number of Kurdish refugees heading for the Turkish border could push the region into serious ethnic conflict? What is the Government's strategy for preventing such a humanitarian disaster? Is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees running refugee camps in the region? If so, do they have sufficient supplies of food and shelter?

Different amounts of money have been bandied around in terms of our contribution to the humanitarian relief effort in Iraq. Has the Department for International Development been given any new money? If so, how much? Will the Secretary of State also tell us about the £30 million given to the Ministry of Defence for humanitarian relief? When she says that we will make an appropriate contribution to the United Nations, over and above the £13 million, how much will that be?

If the military strategy is to avoid destroying the infrastructure of Iraq, to enable reconstruction to take place when the war is over, the disruption to the water and electricity supplies in Basra needs a prompt humanitarian response. Do the Government have plans to create humanitarian aid corridors in Basra and across Iraq, or will the International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed through our coalition lines?

We warmly welcome the Secretary of State's restated commitment to the Government's intention to press for the publication of the road map for peace in the middle east. Following what the Prime Minister has said, will she confirm that that will happen in a matter of days, once the new Palestinian Cabinet has been formed?

So much is at stake in this conflict; the credibility of not only the Secretary of State but our country is on the line. Will she give us an assurance that she will put all her personal concerns to one side, in her effort to do everything possible to get aid through to the needy people of Iraq? Our allied forces have now advanced well into Iraqi territory, and I wish them well as they continue to face great dangers. The fate of the people of Iraq depends on a speedy victory by the allied coalition over Saddam Hussein, and on the quality of our humanitarian response.

I would like to tell the hon. Lady that I have absolutely no personal difficulties. I had some concerns about the run-up to the crisis and about the divisions in the international community, but now we are clear that we want the conflict to be over as rapidly as possible with the minimum of civilian casualties, a good humanitarian effort and a rapid reconstruction of the country. There is no difference between us; there is no problem about that.

The fielding of a Foreign Office Minister was my decision; he had been recently involved in humanitarian issues. I am sorry, as I have said, that the briefing was inadequate and that the House was inadequately answered, but my visit to New York and Washington was important: it just simply had to be.

On the question of debates in the House, as the hon. Lady knows, that is a matter for the usual channels. I see her right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) sitting there, and I would be more than happy for us to debate these issues more frequently.

Progress in New York was very good; I do not know from where the hon. Lady got the idea that it was not. After all the bitterness and division—the bitterness became very great—the first priority was to get the work moving forward on passing a resolution on oil for food, so to do so in such a way is extremely good indeed. It is likely to be passed shortly, and talks are taking place about the possibility of the resolution for reconstruction. I had constructive talks throughout and I am hopeful of progress.

The hon. Lady seems to be under a misapprehension. There is no need for any UN resolution for the UN system to be involved in humanitarian relief—that is a duty everywhere at any time. The UN is not there because of the conflict, but it is ready and poised with people and supplies in the region. It will move in as soon as it is possible for it to do so. That answers her question significantly on the possibility of averting a crisis.

The oil-for-food programme has no engagement with coalition forces. It brings enormous supplies into the country—$10 billion-worth a year—and there is an Iraqi system for distributing it, but the head of that system will be taken off that role. However, the UN will be working to maintain the system so that people continue to be supplied. The military will have no part in that.

On refugees, different projections are bandied about, but, obviously, we have to prepare for a series of eventualities, because depending on what happens there will be smaller or larger numbers of refugees. At the moment, there are not large-scale movements of people. Kurdish people are moving up, but not to the border, and going to stay with family. They are moving out of areas where they think they might be vulnerable because of history, but we have to ensure that supplies are in place for them.

Yes, the UNHCR has pre-positioned supplies. As I said in the statement—I gave the hon. Lady a copy—the MOD £30 million has come directly from the Treasury. The money that has been disbursed by my Department up to now has all come out of its contingency reserve. I am talking with the Treasury, as I am sure Members can imagine, and I am expecting some help in order to make a generous contribution to the UN flash appeal and the Red Cross flash appeal.

On Basra, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Red Cross, in the wonderful role that it still fulfils even in times of conflict, is in there and has already restored more than 40 per cent. of the water supplies to people. It is still working, and our military is preparing further arrangements for water supplies if there is any future difficulty.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, President Bush is committed to taking the road map forward. The new Palestinian Prime Minister wants to form his Government before it is received, and we hope that all that will be done shortly and the road map published.

The military action so far appears to have captured an awful lot of desert and to be bypassing many towns and cities of southern Iraq. The port of Umm Qasr is still blocked and a humanitarian crisis is developing in Basra. How is humanitarian aid to be delivered to the people of southern Iraq, alongside the military action occurring now, as promised?

How soon will the middle east road map be published? Will it be subject to amendment by Israel, or will it stand as published? We have heard that £30 million is being provided for humanitarian relief, but what contribution will be made to reconstruction? Will it come from donor countries or the proposed trust fund to be set up for Iraqi oil reserves? That is an important issue.

Following the total failure of diplomacy in respect of the second resolution, how long does the Secretary of State think it will take to stop blaming the French and secure consensus in the United Nations for a reconstruction resolution to heal the rift in the international community?

The hon. Lady says that the military campaign is taking desert, but the plan is to get to Baghdad quickly and take the top off the regime. The people will then feel safe and will soon be able to emerge, and it will be possible to deliver humanitarian supplies throughout the country.

I have already answered the question about the road map, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The new Palestinian Prime Minister wants to form his Government before it has been received: it is his choice not to receive it yet. It will be delivered shortly after that, and we must all then make the progress that is essential.

Members are understandably confused about the amount of money involved because there are so many different pockets. The £30 million went directly from the Treasury to our military so that they could fulfil their obligations under the Geneva and Hague conventions. I have made £70 million available from my Department's contingency reserve, much of which we are already deploying. The UN flash appeal will put the UN back in quickly with humanitarian supplies, and I am discussing a possible contribution with the Treasury.

The trust fund is oil for food. It has been going for a long time. All the profits from the sale of Iraq's oil go into a trust fund held at the UN, and provide supplies worth $10 billion a year. That is an enormous amount. The country almost lives on handouts—there is very little economic activity—and that will require reform later. We shall need a Security Council resolution giving the Secretary-General full authority to deploy the funds, and we hope to have it within days. Some $4 billion is in the trust fund.

The hon. Lady asked how soon we could stop blaming the French. As I said in my statement, we need everyone to come together and stop blaming each other. I think that blame lies with all the parties that are permanent members of the Security Council—we could have tried to do better—but the job now is to bring the international community together for the reconstruction of Iraq and care for its people. That is what we should all work for.

Over the past 10 years the Secretary of State's Department must have gained a great deal of experience of the effects of depleted uranium weapons on Iraq and, more recently, on Afghanistan. What evidence has the Department of a link between the use of such weapons and cancers in southern Iraq and other parts of the world, and what advice has it shared with the Department of Defence in the United States or the Ministry of Defence here on the continued use of those carcinogenic weapons?

I am not an expert on the subject, but I know that UNEP, the United Nations environmental programme, carried out a study in Kosovo after the conflict there. I think it concluded that there was not a considerable problem, but I will look at the report and tell my hon. Friend the findings. I will also see whether we have any evidence from any of the other conflicts.

The Secretary of State has wisely said that the implementation of the road map is essential in providing the good will that will help to solve the problems of the middle east. Will she seek to establish from President Bush whether he intends British and American troops to be sent in to implement the road map if either of the parties concerned is unhelpful and refuses to accept it?

I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the intention. It is possible that the international community will need to deploy observers, military or otherwise, when it is implemented, to enable the people of the two countries to feel secure in the knowledge that there will be an end to terrorism, killing and suicide bombers and to give us a chance to give the two states a decent future. There will not, however, be the kind of forces to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Will my right hon. Friend give a little more detail about the way in which the humanitarian food aid will be delivered while fighting continues? In many cities there are no-go areas for our troops, who might have to deliver that aid.

It is a phased process. In the first phase, as in all conflicts, the military has a duty to take care of the civilian population, and the MOD and our forces have taken that duty extremely seriously. Advisers from my Department are deployed alongside them, and the Treasury has provided them with special resources. The forces are bringing in supplies, and we have smaller, emergency supplies in the region. The forces are highly organised so that pockets of people can move where they need to. As soon as the conflict moves out of any part of the territory, the UN humanitarian system will be deployed, and as soon as there is peace the oil-for-food programme will be up and running.

In the meantime, the ICRC is out there. My hon. Friend will be aware of the quality of that organisation. It is now working in Basra, despite the difficulties, to reconnect the water supply. I think that we will cope, but obviously we all want the conflict to be over as rapidly as possible, and our priority is to look after the people of Iraq and help them to restore their country.

In wishing the Secretary of State well, may I ask her to give the House an undertaking that she will seek to fulfil her extremely onerous responsibilities with the same calm, measured determination that the Prime Minister has shown throughout this crisis?

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My personality is rather different from that of the Prime Minister, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the passion that I have will be dedicated to this purpose.

My right hon. Friend will know of the great concern expressed by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Landmine Action and others about the humanitarian effects of unexploded munitions. What co-ordination exists between her Department and the Ministry of Defence to map the areas where cluster bombs will be dropped in the war? Will she undertake to ensure that money is provided for those who will clear up afterwards?

Throughout the events in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now Iraq, the relationships between my Department and the Ministry of Defence have become ever closer. The nature of conflict in this disorderly post-cold war era, in which one finds humanitarian crisis and military action side by side, is becoming a pattern, and it means that we must find new ways of organising ourselves. Those relationships are strong and growing ever stronger.

There are absolute duties under the Ottawa convention to record any use of munitions that may damage civilians, and the British military fully adheres to all international treaties and humanitarian obligations. Our troops always de-mine in the first instance, as they are trying to do in the waterways of Iraq now, so that they can bring in humanitarian supplies. Thereafter, we will probably bring in UNMAS, the UN body that looks for mines, because Iraq will have to be de-mined if it is to be reconstructed.

The Secretary of State told us:

"It has been difficult up to now to provide full information to the House because so many international agencies were unwilling to be seen to be preparing for conflict."

Is not the truth that the Government have known at least since last summer that conflict was at least possible, if not probable, given Saddam Hussein's record of non-co-operation, with the MOD actively preparing for possible conflict, while absolutely nothing ha .s been happening in the right hon. Lady's Department or the Department of Trade and Industry, which will be involved in reconstruction? Is that joined-up government on this most serious of issues?

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, unusually for him; clearly he has not been listening. My Department has been organising and working with the Ministry of Defence. We have also had a debate, which was initiated by the Opposition, and we have given evidence to the Select Committee. We have been in close contact with the UN, but it was keeping all its preparations private. It did not want them to be published because some of the member states would have attacked it for preparing for a conflict. My Department said throughout that we were preparing for every contingency, including the most attractive one—the possibility that the threat of military force would cause the regime to co-operate, in which case humanitarian aid and reconstruction would still have been necessary.

Similarly, the IMF and the World Bank—I am closer to the World Bank because I am its UK governor—made fuller preparations than I knew. Both kept quiet because of the problem of being seen to prepare for conflict.

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether the DTI has been preparing for reconstruction, but I can say that it will not be a major force in reconstruction. The Department will need to facilitate the involvement of any UK commercial companies in making their contribution, after the IMF and the World Bank have put in place their arrangements for reform and ensured transparency in the letting of any contracts. There is probably a little time before that happens, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Can the Secretary of State clarify the position in Basra? I know that water and electricity have been restored to 40 per cent. of the population, but my understanding is that 60 per cent. have been without both for almost five days. Are the Red Cross or the Red Crescent in Basra now, attempting to restore these supplies, or will they have to wait until the bombardment of Basra has finished?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the situation is much better than she fears. By Sunday, 40 per cent. had been restored, and the Red Crescent is still working. It is a wonderful organisation that operates around the world in some of the most conflict-pro ne places. It is honoured by the international community, so it can often get co-operation, but its staff do take risks. It brought the emergency to international attention, and it has been working to put things right. I will find out how far we have got today, but on Sunday the figure was 40 per cent.

Can the Secretary of State tell us what was reckless about the Government's strategy towards Iraq at the time of her famous interview, but no longer reckless two days' later? Was that a case of her being reckless with her own career, perhaps, rather than a comment on the state of the Government's policy?

All of that is a matter of record, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not had time to look at it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work in this country of Iraqi professionals—many of whom are now British citizens—such as Emad al-Ebadi, a constituent of mine, in forming the Iraqi reconstruction group? Will she undertake that officials in her Department will meet that group, so that professionals in this country with Iraqi backgrounds can be involved in reconstruction work in Iraq post-conflict?

Certainly, but my officials are working enormously hard and I want to protect their time; however, I am sure that we can facilitate such a meeting. There was a parallel in Afghanistan. Of course, in countries that are so misgoverned, skilled and educated people tend to leave. They are an enormous resource for the country concerned if they can get back quickly to help with reconstruction. In the case of Afghanistan, through the International Organisation for Migration—a UN body—we quickly arranged for professionals in the diaspora to be able to go back for, say, a short time. I think that we could look to doing something else in Iraq, but let me be clear about the commercial phase. There is hardly an economy in Iraq: it is a handout economy built on oil reserves, so it will need reconstructing. Of course, everyone with abilities must engage and help, and we will facilitate Iraqi engagement. However, all contracts will be transparently and properly let. There will be no misuse of any influence on the part of the UK or, I am sure, of the US. The IMF and the World Bank will be crucial to this reconstruction, and they would not permit it.

Since relief and reconstruction depend on oil revenue, will the Secretary of State say who will own and operate the newly liberated oilfields, and what will happen to the several billion dollars in oil revenue that is currently sitting in accounts in the Kuwait compensation fund?

The first stage will be to get the oil-for-food programme up and running. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Iraqi state-owned companies—which are kept running by some very capable engineers—export the oil that is currently producing the $10 billion a year that is used to bring in supplies under the programme. I would imagine that some of that leaks out into the purchasing of military equipment, and so on. The programme will be run, under the authority of the Secretary-General of the UN, by Benon Sevan—an enormously impressive man who has kept that programme running for some time, and who knows how it works.

So stage one is simply to keep the handouts going; then, there will have to be the reform phase. After we have secured the UN reconstruction resolution, the IMF and the World Bank will look at economic reform. The entire currency needs reforming, as do the Ministry of Finance and the various regulations. Expert advice will have to be sought on the oil sector, which relies on very old technology and needs new investment, but that will be properly done later. Stage one is to keep the oil-for-food programme running; the next is to introduce the reform agenda, rebuild a modern economy and give proper consideration to how the oil industry should be reorganised.

Given the importance of healing divisions in the international community, and the likely importance and scale of reconstruction—it will probably be as big as the Marshall plan after the second world war—will the Secretary of State comment on reports in US newspapers this weekend that only US corporations are being invited to bid for the first round of contracts for reconstruction?

There is confusion on this question, I am happy to say. Many countries, the US included, tie their aid. We got rid of that, because otherwise everything has to be sourced back to the donor country, which creates costs and inefficiencies. Our money goes into the system and the best possible and most efficient way of deploying it is used. The US ties its aid, and USAID has a big budget and has given contracts to several US companies to help to provide US supplies in the emergency humanitarian phase. I do not like tying aid, but that is what is happening in that case and not the granting of contracts more broadly, such as for the restructuring of the oil industry, which the US would not have the authority to do—I am happy to say.

I forgot to respond to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on the important question of reparations. Iraq has high levels of debt and significant reparation bills related to Iran and Kuwait. That will all have to be restructured or Iraq would be in the same position as Germany at the end of the first world war, with such a massive burden that the country could not grow. That is an important issue, and we will have to prepare for it.

The Secretary of State will be aware that it is the duty of the House—especially Opposition Members—to assess the confidence that we can have in her plans for contingencies in humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Iraq. Against the background of the Government's record of failure on contingency planning for foot and mouth, the continuing concerns about civil contingency planning in this country and the ambivalence she has displayed in the past week, can she improve the confidence of the House in the plans that she has for contingencies in Iraq by publishing them in detail in the coming week?

The hon. Gentleman should know, because he takes some interest in such matters, that the international community sees my Department as the most effective development organisation in the world. He knows me well enough—I hope that he does—to know that if I say that we have been making preparations, that is the truth. The UK cannot do it alone and we will have to mobilise the whole international system to do its job properly, but the hon. Gentleman can have full confidence that the contingency plans are in place. We have also provided a response to the Select Committee's report and that will be publicly available. I can assure him that my Department is the best development organisation in the international system, and it will be so in this crisis as much as in previous ones.

Will the Secretary of State say more about the role of international oil companies in relation to the oil-for-food programme? Will she clarify the position, in a democratic and liberated Iraq, of those companies that have cosy concessions from Saddam's regime—especially the French company, TotalFinaElf, and the Russian company, Lukoil? Will they receive benefits from their support for that dictator, or will they be punished?

I have tried to make the point that step one will be to get the oil-for-food programme running. I am not an expert on the Iraqi oil industry, but I understand that it is mostly state owned. There will be contracts for export in place, and I see the point that my hon. Friend makes. However, my focus, and that of the UN, on getting oil-for-food running will mean carrying on with existing arrangements for a time, just to keep people supplied. Then the system will need restructuring, because it is old-fashioned and badly run, with old technology. Benon Sevan says that the Iraqis who keep such old technology running are wonderful engineers. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will be involved and we will need a proper, transparent process for any arrangements for reorganisation, modernisation and reform of the Iraqi oil industry.

As we are talking about future reconstruction needs, may I press the Secretary of State on an urgent problem? As of two hours ago, the Red Cross had not yet received a response from either the US or Iraq to its request to interview prisoners of war. What is she doing to ensure that the coalition sends an immediate and positive response to the Red Cross to give it access to prisoners of war, even if we cannot get the reciprocal agreement from Saddam Hussein?

I am not aware of that request or of what has been done, but I take seriously what the hon. Lady says. I will look into it and get back to her.

Given that the UN co-ordinator Ross Mountain gave evidence to the Select Committee on International Development suggesting that it would take four to six weeks to obtain the necessary resolution to restart the oil-for-food programme, and that last week the Foreign Office Minister was not sure whether it would take days or weeks to restart the programme, can the Secretary of State tell the House exactly when the UN Security Council will vote to restart the oil-for-food programme?

I can tell my hon. Friend, that Ross Mountain is a fine humanitarian, but he does not work around the Security Council. He has now gone to New York because the liaison between Geneva, Larnaca and New York was getting too complicated, so he is in place and working. I have never heard the four to six weeks' time scale for the resolution. That must be a guess, and it was a judgment about the bitterness and division that existed in New York and in the international community. Things are proceeding much better. I think it will be days—I do not think it is reckless to suggest that it will be days.

What lessons have been learned from post-conflict Afghanistan and Kosovo, and what steps is the Department taking to ensure that in post-conflict Iraq there is full recognition of UN resolution 1325?

I am sorry—I do not carry in my head a list of all the UN resolutions, so I do not know what 1325 is about.

Women.

Thank you very much. On post-conflict Afghanistan, I think that progress has been better than is generally thought in the international community, but it is a desperately poor, wrecked country that has also had years of drought. As the International Development Committee said, the big push that we need now is order outside Kabul so that the country can move forward. A big effort is under way in Afghanistan on equality for women in the constitution, as well as getting girls back to school. Obviously, it is not easy, but the UN is standing by that and brings its authority; similarly, it does so in Kosovo. It is essential that we do the same in Iraq and I assure the hon. Lady that I will do everything in my power to make sure that we do.

As my right hon. Friend knows, Human Rights Watch issued a strong statement today criticising the situation in Iraqi Kurdistan. It says that the UN has left local authorities with the keys to buildings and no means of transporting two months' worth of food supplies, tents or whatever it may be, and that the Kurdish local authorities are unable to cope. There are 800,000 displaced people already inside the country, as my right hon. Friend knows, and thousands of people have crossed the borders in the past few weeks from the south of Iraq to the north of Iraq. Will she pay particular attention to the situation there? I do not understand why the UN walked away from there in the first place. There is no conflict with Iraqi Kurdistan, so why should the UN just pack up and go home? It has had months to organise for this eventuality.

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. According to the figures that I have, 300,000 people have been displaced, and they are largely going to families. It is urgent that more supplies come into the area, because families who take in family members will need more food and supplies. I understand that there is not a crisis at present, but that there would be if we did not act quickly. We are looking into the situation. I will come back to my hon. Friend with full details. I take her point about the UN system. I know that in the preparations to return, the UN will look for areas that are safe and go there first, and I hope it will go to Kurdistan early. I will make fuller inquiries and get back to my hon. Friend.

Once it is made safe, is it the intention that Basra and southern Iraq should have the capacity to take in a large number of displaced people, in addition to the indigenous population? Apart from the Sir Galahad, which is welcome but of limited capacity, what other ships of the royal fleet auxiliary does the Secretary of State have at her disposal? Does she have bulk supply ships?

There is no intention that Basra should take large numbers of displaced people. Let me repeat: the UN is preparing various contingencies for movements of people, possibly to the borders of all the surrounding countries, and has pre-positioned supplies, but the numbers of people who move would depend on how the conflict develops. We hope that it will be over so quickly and cause so little disruption to civilians that there will be very limited movement of people, but we have to be ready for all eventualities and all possible movements. There was not ever a suggestion that people would move into the cities, so much as a fear that they would move to the borders. Food and supplies have been pre-positioned around the country by the UN system in order that they can be delivered to wherever the people move or to their homes if they remain there.

Supplies are on HMS Sir Galahad in order that in very early stages our military forces adhere to their duties under the Geneva and Hague conventions to ensure that any people in the areas that they are protecting are fully supplied and equipped. I hope that there will shortly be more peace across the territory and that the UN will return. The military will then no longer be in the lead in providing humanitarian supplies.

My Department will not operate separately. We will put resources and people and effort into getting the UN system to work efficiently right across the territory. I will not then need ships. The oil-for-food programme ships in enormous quantities of food all the time, and I know that it is preparing to keep its orders coming, although it will have to pay higher insurance, and so on. The quantities of supplies will be very large, but once the port is secure we should be able to cope.

Has my right hon. Friend explained with her characteristic passion to the European Commission that the humanitarian needs will be no less whatever views may be taken of the legality of the conflict, and that a contribution will be expected commensurate with the wealth of the European Union?

Poul Nielson, the Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, has already proposed a contribution of €20 million, which he is able immediately to deploy on his own authority. Speaking from memory, he is also able to ask for the authority to make available another €100 million from the budget. There was general support at the EU summit on this matter. Of course, the UK provides 20 per cent. of such funds. Despite the differences, he is moving on that question.

What we on this Bench want is to be shocked and awed by the scale of the humanitarian effort. We will be satisfied only when the humanitarian effort starts to equal the military one. Will the right hon. Lady say something more to assure us that the Kurds in northern Iraq will not be overlooked and that they will get the humanitarian aid that they require? What discussions has she had with the Turkish authorities to ensure that the human rights of Kurdish people will be maintained and secured by the 30,000 or so Turkish troops on the Iraqi border?

I can say honestly to the hon. Gentleman that the carefulness of the targeting is greater than in any previous conflict of which I am aware, and I am proud to say that the humanitarian preparations—certainly for our armed forces—are greater than ever before. The UN system is well organised, but that has not been publicised. I hope that there is a reasonable response to the appeal that is about to be made. That will be very important, and I shall try to mobilise an international effort to ensure that countries do not hold back owing to differences over how we got to this point. Of course the Kurds must not be overlooked, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). We are watching what is going on there and will ensure that supplies continue to flow, as they were also dependent on the oil-for-food programme.

I have not personally been in touch with the Turkish authorities, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been repeatedly, and the United States Administration are in pretty continuous communication with them in order to try to ensure that all remains calm in Kurdistan, so that people can prepare for maintaining their level of autonomy and for taking forward their Government in that part of a liberated Iraq.