How far UK aid and support for heavily indebted poor countries are conditional upon (a) human rights, (b) corruption and (c) governance. [104775]

The heavily indebted poor countries initiative is designed to lift the debt burden of the poorest countries to enable them to reform, grow their economies and provide basic services to their people. Debt relief is conditional on agreement on a poverty reduction strategy that drives forward economic and social reform.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Given that, in the six years of the scheme, only three of the 42 countries eligible have received debt stock reduction, is it not time to back the Jubilee Debt Campaign's call for full cancellation of HIPC debts and redouble efforts to assist those countries in meeting the conditions, so that they can finally break free of the shackles of debt?

If the hon. Gentleman's facts were true, it might well be, but in fact 26 countries have received debt reduction, seven have completed the process and $62 billion of debt has been written off. Those are very poor countries, and that is a lot of money for them—two thirds of their debt. There has been a very big expansion in their spending on public services and significant reform. Another stock of countries are not there yet, mostly because they are in conflict—Burma, Sudan, Congo—and we are trying to use the availability of debt

Given my right hon. Friend's personal interest in not just debt but human rights in Rwanda, does she agree that it is still important to continue to support and provide resources for the Gacaca courts to ensure genuine reconciliation?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The world owes Rwanda support because we turned away, in breach of the genocide convention, when genocide was threatened and, to all our shame, the UN was pulled out and nearly 1 million people were slaughtered under orders.

One understands that there are contentions on governance in Malawi, but will the Secretary of State express concern at the fact that hospitals in Malawi need help, which surely could be provided through non-governmental organisations?

I agree. Malawi is a desperately poor country and, of course, it has been affected by drought and by problems with the governance of the country, selling off food stocks in the face of drought and the Government's focus on changing the constitution to get a third term, rather than looking after the needs of their people. We are trying to drive reform in Malawi's institutions, but we have shifted some of our resources into direct provision to people. However, one-off projects do not reform a country's institutions, which is the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and we will get back to trying to help Malawi to have better institutions and better health care as soon as we can.

If she will make a statement on her Department's responsibilities for British overseas territories. [104776]

We continue to provide appropriate support to the overseas territories that need it. We have refocused our support to encourage local leadership and lessen the sense of dependency. Our total programme is currently worth roughly £35 million a year, and it goes mainly to St. Helena and Montserrat. We provide lower levels of support elsewhere.

Will the Minister have discussions with her opposite number at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the fact that so many of our overseas territories are falling between the stools of the two Departments? Will the Minister consider the parlous state in the Turks and Caicos Islands, where some of the people in the most abject poverty, with children being denied education and labour being unregulated are to found under the British Crown? It is about time that either her Department or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office got a grip on the situation, rather than allowing it to be out of sight and out of mind.

It is not right to say that many of the overseas territories fall between two stools. We provide a huge amount of support for all of them, to suit their appropriate needs, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the problems of the people in the Turks and Caicos Islands. We are working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a study of human rights issues in the overseas territories, and it will be discussed with the territories' Governments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also looked into the problem in respect of school placements, but I will ensure that it is raised again and that we talk about it.

The Secretary of State will be aware that, in the main, these territories do not want independence. They want to be treated like grown-ups. Has not the time come to look at the French solution, whereby we would integrate them into Britain and give them proper representation here and in Europe?

I would argue that my Department, which looks at economic support in particular, treats them very much as grown-ups. We are trying to provide them with sustainable economies. In the case of St. Helena and Montserrat, for example, we are looking at access and air transport needs. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of parliamentary representation, which, as he knows, has not been this Government's policy. At present, there are no prospects of looking at that. It is, however, a responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

What representations she has received about the impact of the collapse of coffee prices on poverty reduction in Ethiopia. [104777]

Coffee is Ethiopia's largest export, grown mostly by small farmers. The fall in prices, which is very large, has cut their income and, of course, increased poverty. It has also reduced the capacity of Ethiopia to borrow abroad to finance essential investment: it is one of the poorest countries in the world with a GDP of $100 a head. That highlights the importance of Ethiopia diversifying exports. My Department has organised advice from UK retailers to help develop Ethiopia's horticultural sector. Prime Minister Meles is working to ensure that Ethiopia can learn from reform in this sector and then make progress in diversification in other sectors.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She clearly agrees with me that Ethiopia, as one of the poorest countries in the world, cannot survive these devastating reductions in coffee prices. Does she agree that we need to look at radical extra measures to ensure that we can raise those prices? First, we could use the €750 million available in the European Union. Secondly, we could help the International Coffee Organisation to drive up standards. Thirdly—this is a radical suggestion—we could assist in destroying some of the sub-standard stocks held around the world to help drive up prices.

I agree that this is a serious problem. The old way of dealing with things, however, which was to compensate countries for a drop in prices, paralysed them into growing crops that were not taking them forward. That led many poor countries to be reliant on commodities that are constantly falling in price. We need changes in trade rules, so that countries can process their products, get more value added and diversify, making available aid to support them in the diversification process. I agree about the seriousness of the issue, but the way in which we deal with it must help these countries go forward, not paralyse them in declining sectors.

As the Secretary of State knows, I led an Inter-Parliamentary Union trip to Ethiopia in December, where I saw at first hand the problems created by the drought. Despite the understandable focus on Iraq, will she nevertheless assure the House that she will ensure that Ethiopia receives all the food aid that it has been promised as quickly as possible?

Yes, indeed. The drought is very serious. Fifteen million people are affected. We must provide support, but not in a way that destroys local agriculture. Constant handouts destroy markets and destroy recovery, and there has been too much of that in Ethiopia. We are providing big support, and I have given an absolute undertaking, with which I am sure Members on both sides of the House would agree: we must stand by the people of Iraq but not at the cost of people in need in poorer parts of the world. We will not withdraw any support from crises in Africa or from our programmes for poor people anywhere. Our support for Iraq must be additional.

What plans she has to provide alternative occupations to those involved in the fanning of the opium poppy. [104778]

My Department is supporting rural development and other programmes in Afghanistan so that Afghans can develop livelihoods that do not depend on poppy growing. We are taking care not to provide perverse incentives by working only in poppy-growing areas.

Many of my constituents who are in the armed services are in Afghanistan, and far too many of my constituents are drug addicts because of heroin. Can we see the job through in Afghanistan? Will the Minister give a commitment to quantify the success in providing alternative employment in Afghanistan over the next year?

Yes. Of the £40 million a year that we are providing in support to Afghanistan, probably a third to half of it goes on diversification. Our programmes include a £3 million livelihood programme in Badakhstan, and a £2 million migrant labour scheme in the central highlands to stop some people migrating to the poppy-growing areas. We therefore do a lot of specific practical work, which will be continued in the coming years.

Ninety per cent. of the heroin coming into the United Kingdom is supplied from Afghanistan. This year, Afghanistan will have a bumper crop of some 4,000 tonnes. What are the Government going to do, because the Minister has failed to stop the production of opium in Afghanistan? What will happen, and what will she and her ministerial colleagues do, when bumper crops come into the UK?

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problem of the heroin that comes to the UK from Afghanistan. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has done a huge amount to highlight the problem and examine practical solutions, and I think that everyone applauds his work.

It is not working.

The hon. Gentleman says it is not working, but clearly long-term support will be needed to change the livelihoods of disadvantaged people in rural areas. We are working with the Afghan Government to achieve that goal.

Is the Minister aware of any examples of when action on drug-supplying nations has had any effect on the amount of drugs sold and provided in drug-taking nations?

Work across government is co-ordinated among all Government Departments. A considerable amount of work is being done in Iran to tackle problems related to supply routes. Although the work in Afghanistan is in its early days, it is extremely important because it is focused on the area from which most of the drugs come.

Is the Minister aware that pyrethrum—a chrysanthemum—grows in the same conditions as the poppy plant? It is used for the manufacture of organic insecticides and pesticides—I see that the Secretary of State is familiar with it. It is used by companies such as Agropharm, which is in my constituency. What is the Department doing to encourage farmers to grow pyrethrum instead of poppies?

I was not aware of the particular problem raised by the hon. Lady. [HON. MEMBERS: "Solution."] Okay, the solution. I understand that she has received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary the State about the issue. I shall examine and take up the matter again and ensure that we take advantage of the solution.

The continuing growth of poppy fields is a major problem. What steps have been taken to provide finance for machinery and education so that we turn to alternative solutions to ensure that living standards in Afghanistan increase?

My hon. Friend has pointed to the longer-term solution that we must find. We have invested substantial amounts and we shall continue to do so. We provided £15 million for the Afghan reconstruction trust fund this year. The fund covers a range of issues, including alternative livelihoods and people's educational needs. There are other specific projects, but the solution is to work with the Afghan Government to ensure that their country has a sustainable economy and sustainable social programmes.

If she will make a statement on the proportion of reconstruction costs in Iraq that will be met by the use of Iraqi oil revenues. [104779]

The Iraqi economy is in very poor shape and most people are dependent on handouts provided through the oil-for-food programme. Some 16 million people are completely dependent on handouts and are not economically active. The programme spends $10 billion each year and is funded by the sale of Iraqi oil. The immediate challenge is to get the oil-for-food programme up and running again. Thereafter, a UN-mandated transitional Government will need to agree an economic reform programme, which will need to address the problems of debt, reparations, building a modern economy and modernising the oil industry.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply, which I notice did not answer my question. Is she aware that the Foreign Secretary said last Tuesday:

"we shall propose…that every single cent and penny of those oil revenues"

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. Iraqi oil is sold under the oil-for-food programme and every scrap of money that comes from legitimate sales goes into a UN trust fund to purchase food and medical supplies and to patch up water supplies and so on to keep everyone fed. The basic programme for looking after the people of Iraq is funded by their oil. We need to keep that running and modernise their economy so that the oil industry is better and their economy can grow. The oil sector will make Iraq a wealthy country, but there will have to be reform. The first stage is to fund humanitarian aid. Once the reforms are in place, the economy will be strengthened and will grow. The money goes through a trust fund.

What progress is being made in the awarding of contracts for reconstruction in Iraq? Given the United States' policy of tying its aid, can the Secretary of State assure us that the awarding of the contracts will be fair and, as the money will come from the oil trust fund, in the long-term interests of the people of Iraq?

I understand public concern about that, but people should not be too worried. So far, USAID has awarded contracts involving aid money to US companies to deal with the immediate humanitarian crises. That is bad practice. The UK is untied and we always fund the most efficient provider, which is usually better for the region. However, such provision of contracts has no implications for the future reconstruction of Iraq. That will require a UN mandate to put an interim Iraqi Government in place, followed by work carried out by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Reform will be transparent and any contracts will be properly awarded.

Donald Rumsfeld said that American dollars will not be used for the reconstruction of Iraq. If $400 billion is needed for the task, if the USA wants total control of the process and if donors such as France and Germany will not contribute unless there is a new UN resolution, does the right hon. Lady think that the Prime Minister will be successful this time in persuading George Bush to go down the UN route?

The Prime Minister reached an agreement with President Bush in the Azores that there would be a UN mandate for reconstruction, which is also an absolute legal requirement. It is clear from the advice of our Attorney-General on 1441 and previous resolutions that our armed forces are in Iraq as an occupying power with humanitarian responsibilities and duties to keep order and the civil administration running. They do not, however, have the authority to reorganise institutions or establish a new Government. That requires a UN mandate. The UK is clear about that and I am hopeful that, as everything settles down, the international community will unite around that so that everyone is involved, including the IMF and World Bank, in providing proper help for Iraq to reconstruct itself.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to build international bridges following the Iraq conflict? Does she also agree that getting a UN resolution and using the UN to distribute contracts for post-war reconstruction is the best way to go about that?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I have said, I think that the way in which we approached the crisis, allowing international division to be so deep, was deeply unfortunate. But we are where we are, and we need to get the world back together, for the sake of Iraq and the middle east, to drive forward the peace process in Palestine, and for the sake of world order in these troubled times. That is a very urgent priority that everyone should attend to. A UN resolution on Iraq could be part of the healing process. First, we need a resolution to keep the oil-for-food programme running, as 16 million Iraqis are dependent on it. Work on that is going on, and much of it is led by Kofi Annan. We are hopeful that there will be a resolution within days. Thereafter, we need agreement on a UN resolution to bring into being a legitimate Iraqi transitional Government—we are working on that too. That is supremely important; I fundamentally agree with my hon. Friend.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State restated the urgent need for a new UN resolution on the oil-for-food programme. Has her Department any idea how long it will be before the suspension of the programme results in serious food shortages in Iraq? When does she expect a new resolution to be tabled at the United Nations—are we talking about a matter of days or weeks?

We are talking about a matter of days—it is looking more hopeful. It may have to be a two-stage resolution, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it is supremely important. As for needs in the meantime, under the oil-for-food programme, a couple of months' supplies were distributed across the country as the crisis developed, so in the short term food is not the problem—it is water and other supplies. As we know, at Basra, there has been damage to a cable. People cannot live without water—in a very short period they will get diarrhoea and cholera, and that is the danger in Basra. I am happy to say that the International Committee of the Red Cross is now in the power plant working on reconstruction, and it and UNICEF are tanking water to the people of Basra. There is danger in the short term, but I think that we will get that resolution very soon.

On 18 March, the Secretary of State staled confidently in a letter that

"the Prime Minister has persuaded President Bush that there must be a new UN resolution creating a UN mandate for the reconstruction of Iraq."

The hon. Lady is right. There was agreement in the Azores on a UN resolution. The question now is about the detailed content of that resolution, which is of course crucial to legality and international co-operation, as I have previously explained. Talks are going on—I have been involved in some of them, but I will not give all the details here—to bring together France, Russia and Germany, and I am hopeful that we will make progress. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right—there is a lot of hurt and division, and we have got to heal it to look after Iraq, the middle east and the world.

What response she has made to the UN appeal on behalf of refugees from eastern Congo; and if she will make a statement. [104780]

We are working with others to try to relieve suffering in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, but there will not be substantial progress without political progress, which requires the installation of the now-agreed transitional Government in Kinshasa, Ugandan withdrawal from Ituri, and all parties ceasing to fund and supply their surrogate fighters, who are responsible for destabilising and terrorising the people of eastern Congo.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that UN appeals for the Congo, Somalia, Eritrea and elsewhere in Africa where unspeakable tragedies are occurring have been massively under-subscribed, in some cases attracting only a few per cent. of the amount requested? Is there not a danger that events in Iraq will overshadow the very real tragedies in Africa? What can we do to try to avoid that?

I am following events in the Congo, Somalia and Eritrea in great detail, and the UK is highly involved. My hon. Friend said that appeals were massively under-subscribed, but it is not as bad as that. I shall give him further details. The whole of Africa is worried about the danger that the world will turn away from it, and there are serious crises in southern Africa, the Horn and Angola. I have given an absolute assurance that the UK will not turn away, and none of our funding will be removed—as I said earlier, I think that that has the support of the House. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will work to make sure that the international community does not turn away either.

What efforts are being made to tackle the human rights abuses that are continuing in the Congo, which are of such concern to refugees in the area?

Horrendous human rights abuse is taking place: killing, raping, even cannibalism, and, on top of that, there is desperate poverty right across the country, which is as big as western Europe and massively rich in minerals. That is the tragedy of the history of the Congo. We are trying to provide humanitarian relief, but no one can secure human rights until we stop all the militias that are being armed and funded by the various contesting parties, get the new transitional Government into Kinshasa and get Uganda out of the Congo. Then we will be able to help people restore the country. We are prioritising and working on that. We need political progress to stop the abuse of people.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 March.

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

I associate myself with those remarks. Everyone hopes that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are destroyed speedily and effectively. When the Prime Minister meets the President of the United States later today, what proposals will he make to avoid any further divisions of international opinion on such issues and to make sure that in future, on issues of justice and peace in the world, there is the widest possible support in the international and national community?

The best way of ensuring that we keep the international community unified is that when we enter into understandings, as we did in resolution 1441, we keep to those understandings. It is also important to make sure that we are broad in the agenda that we present to the world, which is why I believe that issues such as the middle east peace process are especially important at this time, when we are taking military action in Iraq for reasons that we all know. Of course it is important to make sure that Iraq has its weapons of mass destruction removed. That is the objective of our campaign.

The Prime Minister may have noticed over recent days that opinion polls in the United Kingdom suggest that Britain is very respectful of his own position in terms of the middle east peace process, but that people are rather more uncertain and sceptical, if not cynical, about the US position. In his meeting with President Bush later today, will he underline how important it is that we get an unambiguous and definite date for the publication of the road map, that we see an unambiguous commitment from the United States to a United Nations resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq, and that we see a clear commitment to making sure that the illegal Israeli settlements start to be dismantled?

Of course we believe that the middle east peace process is important. For that reason, we have made it clear that when the Palestinian Prime Minister has his Cabinet in place, the road map will be given to both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. From the conversations that I have had over many weeks with President Bush, and from the statement that we made in the Azores, together with the Spanish Prime Minister and the Portuguese Prime Minister, I believe that there is a commitment on the part of the United States to making sure that the road map is not merely published, but carried through. I point out that President Bush was the first US President to commit himself unequivocally to the two-state solution: Israel confident of its security, and a viable Palestinian state. That is what we must make sure is now done.

I take this opportunity to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our armed services for their bravery, commitment and sacrifice, and say to their families that they remain in our thoughts and prayers, as do the innocent civilians in Iraq.

I agree entirely that it is important that we give support to those people in Iraq who are rising up to overthrow Saddam and his deeply repressive regime. I think, however, that the way in which we do that and the timing have to be left to the commanders on the ground. That is important because they will know the true facts of the situation. We must be careful that we know we have support in place able to help them before we encourage them to do things that may lead to their deaths.

Given the Prime Minister's answer about losing grip on power with regard to Saddam Hussein, he knows that television is a powerful medium and that it is never more so than during times of war when it is used by a ruthless dictator, like Saddam Hussein. Will the Prime Minister tell us what progress is being made to take Iraqi television off air permanently, how successful coalition attempts have been to jam Iraqi radio broadcasts in Iraq, and what methods are being used to pass information to the Iraqi people to let them know that, if and when they rise up, they will be supported?

In relation to any military targets, we have to ensure that they have a military objective—that is the legal requirement as well as the stated political objective that we have set. There is no doubt that one of the issues is how we can best communicate with the Iraqi people. That is being urgently looked at. There are different ways in which we can communicate with them, including through people inside Iraq who can tell them exactly what is happening.

Despite some reports in the media, the march to Baghdad has been both fast and successful. However, the House will have heard reports in the meantime that the United States is planning to send some reinforcements to the region. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether Britain is also planning to send any reinforcements?

We believe that we have the troops in theatre that we need, but of course that is always kept under review. At the moment, the military advice that we receive is that we do have sufficient forces for the job. I believe that that is the advice also given by the US military to the President of the United States.

The House will have seen pictures confirming that Iraqi troops have been issued with chemical weapons protection equipment and will have read reports that they have access to chemical and biological weapons. Is it not essential that we make it clear to every Iraqi commander that the use of such weapons is a war crime, that obeying orders is no defence and that anyone guilty of such crimes will be prosecuted after the war?

Yes, that is important. We are making it clear to Iraqi commanders in the field that if they use chemical or biological weapons, they will be deservedly prosecuted with the utmost severity. There are increasing reports about the distribution of equipment to Iraqi forces. It is difficult to be sure of their accuracy, but we have obviously been prepared for such an eventuality from the outset.

On the work that will be required to rebuild Iraq after the war, does the Prime Minister believe that it is necessary to secure a UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq?

Yes, I do. It is important to ensure that that is the case. There are two stages to the process. The first is to get a UN resolution on the humanitarian oil-for-food programme. I hope that that can be achieved in the next few days; it is the essential first requirement. It is also important that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration will have the broadest possible support. That is why the UN's role is important.

In that answer, the Prime Minister made it clear that he wants to persuade the US Administration that pressing for such a resolution on Iraq is an objective. He, like everyone else, knows that the US Administration are deeply sceptical about the UN's future role in reconstruction. If there is no UN resolution, does the Prime Minister have an alternative?

First, I keep reading about US scepticism, but it is clear from my conversations with President Bush that we should ensure that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration will have the UN's full endorsement. That is important for the process because it releases funds and allows the international financial institutions to operate better and more effectively. It is better for everybody. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the position of both the British Government and the US Administration. It is clearly set out in the statement that we jointly issued in the Azores.

May I ask the Prime Minister and the House to join my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and me in paying tribute to Corporal Stephen Allbutt and Trooper David Clarke of the Queen's Royal Lancers who lost their lives so tragically in so-called friendly fire in Basra yesterday? Will the Prime Minister ensure that there is a full and immediate inquiry into the identification systems of Challenger 2 tanks so that any faults can be put right straight away?

I know that the House wants to express its condolences and sympathy to the families of my hon. Friends' constituents. They were immensely brave people who died in the service of their country. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be the fullest possible inquiry into what went wrong to ensure that any lessons can be learned.

Obviously, the House endorses what has been said about the service personnel who have been lost.

Again, let me say that I do not believe that there is a need to persuade the President about UN involvement. We made it clear in the statement that we issued that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration must be specifically accepted and endorsed by the UN.

I thank the Prime Minister for that detailed reply. As he has been quite correct in stressing his commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq, will he give the House an update on the number of Turkish troops who have crossed the border into northern Iraq, and on what exactly they are doing?

There always have been Turkish troops in that position and there are obviously large numbers of Turkish troops there now. They say—as they have said consistently—that hat is to provide against the possibility of large numbers of people coming over the border from northern Iraq. We and the United States have done everything that we possibly can, however, to make it very clear to the Turkish authorities, the Turkish military and the Turkish Government that any attempt to break the territorial integrity of Iraq in any way would be utterly unacceptable. I do not believe that that is their intention, but obviously we are watching the situation carefully.

What plans he has to visit Iran.

I have no plans to visit Iran.

I am not surprised at that response. Given the Iranian Government's well-known support for terrorists, their appalling human rights record, their recently exposed nuclear weapons programme, and America's view of the country as an evil power, will my right hon. Friend visit Iran as soon as the conflict is over and use our new relationship with it to bring to an end the human rights abuses, the nuclear weapons programme and Iran's appalling support for terrorists, so that a democratic and tolerant state can be established without an American invasion?

I cannot give any commitment to visit Iran, but I would say to my hon. Friend that the UK remains committed to a policy of constructive and, where necessary, critical engagement that allows us to support the reform process there, while maintaining what is described in diplomatic terms as a robust dialogue on issues of concern. Those issues include Iranian support to terrorist groups in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran's reported development of weapons of mass destruction, and aspects of its human rights record. I believe that there are genuine reforming elements inside Iran with which we can work, but it is important that we do so with our eyes open.

With Iranians massing across the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, and with reports that British troops are being fired on in the al-Faw peninsula, possibly by Iranian irregular militia men who have infiltrated Iraq, will the Prime Minister tell the House what orders have been given to the Royal Marines in this very dangerous situation?

The Defence Secretary has just said to me that there appears to be no substance in those reports. I think that that is the simplest answer that I can give to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we are watching the situation very carefully indeed, but Iran knows what the consequences of any such action against British troops would be. The messages that we have sent to the Iranian authorities have been very clear, and I believe that they will be heeded.

After the liberation of Iraq and of the Kurds, Turkomans, Shi'as and Sunnis from Ba'ath fascism, when will the Iraqi people be able to have representative government? Will my right hon. Friend emphasise to President Bush that, as well as the endorsement of the United Nations, we also need a representative interim Government in Iraq as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend, not for the first time, has put his finger on the real issue, which is not whether we get the UN endorsement—although I think that that is important and that there is agreement on it. What we should really be asking is, "What type of Government do we want to see?" He is right to say that the Government must be broadly representative, take account of the diversity of the country, respect human rights, and move Iraq along a path towards democracy. It is interesting that, when we look at the northern part of Iraq—which is protected, as I was saying on Monday, by British and American pilots policing the no-fly zone—we can see how the Iraqi people, given the chance, can opt for, and want, a better future. I have no doubt that a major part of our justification for military conflict is that we are now in the process of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction to ensure that the Iraqi people are given better government for the future.

On 29 January, the Prime Minister told the House:

"After we deal with Iraq … We have to confront North Korea about its weapons programme".—[Official Report, 29 January 2003;Vol. 398, c. 880.]

No, we are not contemplating military action against North Korea, but that remains my position. I would simply point out two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is important that we deal with the nuclear weapons programme of North Korea, because that is a threat to the outside world. There is no doubt about that, and it is interesting that some of the strongest statements of support for the coalition military action in Iraq came from Japan and South Korea, which know very well the dangers of living next door to an unstable and repressive regime with weapons of mass destruction.

For people who are not aware of the Prime Minister's personal commitment to securing justice for Palestinians—that includes Muslims in my constituency, in Britain and around the world—will he confirm that, following action in Iraq, the Government's foreign policy priority will be securing a viable Palestinian state and justice for Palestinians?

I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that that will be a central priority of British foreign policy. I believe that we have contributed to it through the conference that we held on Palestinian political reform. I know that there is a great deal of cynicism and scepticism in the Muslim and Arab world about whether statements made recently on the publication of the road map and the desire to take the process forward are simply statements made in the context of military action in Iraq that will then be forgotten. I can give my hon. Friend my assurance that they will not be forgotten. They will be taken forward, and they will be done.

One problem of 24-hour news coverage of the war is the anxiety caused to many families of troops when they hear reports of deaths and injuries among our forces long before they receive information, even on which units are involved. Will the Prime Minister ensure that communication between the Ministry of Defence and families is improved so that reassurance and information can be delivered to all families Quickly?

The hon. Gentleman is right in identifying the nature of the problem. This is a war that is being reported in the most extraordinary and open way, 24 hours a day. That is the difficulty, but I can assure him that the first priority of the Ministry of Defence is to get in touch with the next of kin of those who are casualties in this conflict. We will try to do our level best to improve the system of communication, but it is difficult for the reason that he gives.

When the Prime Minister flies to the United States of America later today, will he tell President Bush that his Administration's neglect of his old European allies, their scorn for multinational diplomacy and their cavalier disregard for the UN's role in global politics are not the best foundations for the transatlantic bridge that our Government are trying to build to secure an enduring peace in a post-Saddam Hussein middle east?

I do not think that I will be saying quite that, no. However, I will say to my hon. Friend that the United States went through the UN, which is why we got resolution 1441. Without going back over all the arguments that are wearisome and familiar to people, the fact is that we agreed that if Saddam did not take his last chance, action would follow. He did not take his last chance, and people did not agree to action. So there is a difficulty there; but I have no doubt that it is important for us to ensure that Europe and America come back together at the end of the conflict.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the contingency reserve is adequate to cover the costs of military operations in and around Iraq?

We will meet all the costs that are necessary, yes.

Will my right hon. Friend join me and all other Members in sending sympathies and deepest condolences to Gordon Evans and Theresa Evans, the parents of Llywelyn Karl Evans, who sadly lost his life in the helicopter accident last week? Will he assure us that that family, and indeed other families, will receive professional advice, counselling and support for as long as is necessary?

Again, let me express my condolences and those of the whole House, and indeed the country, to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent who lost his life in that tragic helicopter accident. I assure my hon. Friend that we will ensure that the counselling and advice that are necessary will be there for that family, as they will be for the families of others who have lost their lives in the conflict.

The protection of the British public from terrorism is as important as the successful prosecution of the war in Iraq. Is it not unacceptable that the Government have still not issued detailed guidance to schools on protecting children in the event of a terrorist attack? This morning the Government's Teachernet website promises that such guidance will be issued soon. When will it be available?

I cannot answer that question directly, but I will certainly find out when the guidance will be issued and write to the hon. Gentleman. I would point out, however. that we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the most detailed preparations to try to protect the country against a terrorist attack. I think that the security services are doing a remarkable job—an extremely good job. That, frankly, is the best way in which we can protect ourselves, but as I have said, I shall have to get back to the hon. Gentleman with the exact time when the guidance will be issued.

The Prime Minister will soon meet President Bush. Will he tell the President that the whole House deplores the degrading and demeaning treatment of US prisoners, servicemen and servicewomen? Will he also tell him that we expect the terms of the Geneva convention to extend to every prisoner, irrespective of nationality or location?

We will obviously ensure that any Iraqi prisoners are treated by us in accordance with the Geneva convention. If my hon. Friend is referring to Guantanamo bay—if that is the purpose of his question—I must tell him that those people are not the combat troops of a Government. As I have said before, however, it is important for them to be treated with dignity and for their human rights to be respected.

This is not a question about Iraq.

I regret to say that the honest answer is that I cannot explain that, since I am not fully aware of the circumstances. I can certainly look into what those circumstances are, but I assume that the decision has been taken by the magistrates authority. There it is; it is a local decision, but obviously it is one with which some will disagree strongly. Anyway, I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Can my right hon. Friend add the issue of adequate United Nations resources to the ever-lengthening list of things that he has to discuss with President Bush this afternoon? I am concerned that the United Nations, which has insufficient cash to do the job that it needs to do at the moment, will not have enough to do the work of reconstructing post-conflict Iraq.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point, and there are two issues. In relation to the oil-for-food programme, of course, there is money in that account, which is why it is important that we get the UN resolution. Of course, the potential oil wealth of Iraq is going to be essential for future investment in the country. On the second point that my hon. Friend makes, the UN will launch an appeal soon, and that is an appeal to which I am sure we and many others will contribute.