What steps the Government are taking to support the EU member-designate countries which will join on 1 May 2004. [123865]

The Government remain committed to ensuring that the 10 countries joining the EU on 1 May next year are ready to do so. The UK has provided bilateral assistance to the candidates worth over £350 million since 1989. On the practical side, there are more than 50 UK civil servants working full-time on twinning projects in the candidate countries.

While I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on their excellent work in pushing forward the enlargement process, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will give every possible assistance to the member-designate countries that have received early-warning letters from the EU Commission to ensure that the outstanding obstacles are dealt with? Does he agree that it would be most embarrassing and disappointing if the EU's first act on 1 May 2004 were to take infraction proceedings against one of its new members?

My hon. Friend is right. Equally, however, all candidate countries must conform to EU norms. From May next year, they will be full members of the EU. Just as any existing EU member state can receive such infraction letters, other states must stand ready for them. As I said, we are working as one of the lead countries in ensuring that the incoming member states are ready to be full and active members of the EU as of May next year.

In warmly welcoming the incoming member states, will the Minister confirm that he has deprecated the bellicose remarks of the French President at the time of the Iraq war, and of the French Defence Minister when she visited Warsaw? Will he stress to the member-designate states that we believe in a deeper rather than a wider—I am sorry, I mean a wider rather than a deeper Europe?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to draw attention to remarks that were certainly unfortunate. I hope, therefore, that he will join me in not deprecating but condemning the fact that the Conservative MEPs Roger Helmer and Daniel Hannan have been in Estonia campaigning for a no vote, and that Lady Thatcher has sent a letter to the Estonians calling on them to vote no to Europe. I hope that the Conservative party will now dissociate itself from Lady Thatcher and withdraw the Whip from those MEPs. Conservative Front-Bench Members cannot say that they are in favour of enlargement when they send their agents and propaganda to campaign for a no vote to isolate Britain further from Europe and get countries that want to join the EU to—

Order. I call Mr. Knight.

Given the presumption among some hon. Members that public opinion is against Europe and the euro, will my hon. Friend comment on public opinion in member-designate countries, as expressed in the referendums that have taken place so far?

There have been open referendums and solid votes in favour of joining the EU. It is quite remarkable that the countries that have freed themselves from the Soviet yoke should be voting yes to the EU, when the Opposition are actively planning to renegotiate in advance of a withdrawal from the EU. I call on the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, to condemn Lady Thatcher and to withdraw the Whip from the Tory MEPs campaigning for a no vote in Estonia.

Are the Government satisfied with the protection of the human rights of the Roma minorities, especially in Slovakia and the Czech Republic? Given that those countries are due to become members of the EU within the year, will he have words with his colleagues in the Home Office to stop them deporting citizens of those countries—and of others, such as Poland—who are residing in this country at the moment?

The hon. Gentleman has raised this very serious issue in other debates and we respect his concern. Our embassies and Departments such as the Department for International Development, as well as the Foreign Office, have been raising the issue. It is a serious matter. We believe that laws are in place to protect all minorities in Europe adequately, but the Roma are a special case. We will have to have special regard to ensuring that they have the same rights and enjoy the same human freedoms as all other EU citizens.

If he will make a statement on the results of his recent visit to Afghanistan. [123866]

I visited Afghanistan from 30 June to 1 July. In Kabul, I met President Karzai, Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah and Interior Minister Jalali, and saw a British Army team training NCOs of the Afghan national army. On a visit to Kandahar with Interior Minister Jalali, I spoke to a 200-strong meeting of tribal leaders and women's representatives, visited a pioneering women's health centre, and had meetings with the governor and at the police academy.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. As chair of the all-party group on Afghanistan, I have met a great many Afghans—[Interruption]. I hope that Opposition Members will listen. All the Afghans I have met are appreciative of Britain's role in Afghanistan and are quite optimistic for the future, but my right hon. Friend is right: the key element, which they always stress to me, is security. What more can be done to deal seriously with the threat of warlords and militias?

Two related things have to be done. First, the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban have, bluntly, to be eliminated; they continue to pose a serious threat, especially in the south of the country, as I discussed in Kandahar with all the tribal leaders, the Afghan Administration and the US generals and the colonel in command of the forces fighting al-Qaeda.

Following the conflict in Afghanistan, the United States Administration and the Government promised certain amounts of money towards the rebuilding of the infrastructure of that country. What was the global figure and how much has been paid?

At the Tokyo conference in January last year, the United Kingdom pledged £200 million over five years, plus 19 per cent. of the European Union pledge of US $1 billion. We have spent £170 million since September 2001 and we shall continue to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in the future. Most of the money that was pledged at the January 2002 conference has been paid, although some has not. The financing requirements spelt out by the Transitional Administration are substantial. They have called for a further US $15 billion of assistance over the next 10 years and that is currently being discussed with international partners.

Given that 90 per cent. of the heroin on Britain's streets and three-quarters of the world's opium originate in Afghanistan, what practical and financial help and assistance can the UK Government give to the Afghan Administration to destroy this year's crop, which is currently being harvested and is predicted to be a bumper one, to ensure that that evil trade is ended once and for all?

On the size of this year's crop, we shall await the results of the UN-US study. For the first time, the US and the UN agencies are using a combined methodology so that we do not end up with the huge variations in crop production that have occurred in previous years. We think that the data will be at a higher and better level.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that, in the last week of the Iraq war, there were more combat deaths in Afghanistan than in Iraq, as a result of which there has already been a considerable British reinforcement of regular troops and armoured vehicles. As a result of his visit, can the Foreign Secretary say whether he will recommend that further reinforcements go to Afghanistan?

We have 300 troops in the international stabilisation and assistance force and a number of excellent troops, whom I saw, involved in other aspects of security. We are moving 60 to 70 troops, plus some Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development officials, into the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif. I have made no recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to increase those numbers, but he and our ambassador on the ground, in consultation with the commanders of the international security assistance force and our US colleagues, keep the number of troops, including our contribution, under very careful review.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the UK role in Afghanistan, but does he not think that it is time that the United States stopped its collaboration with the warlords and made it very clear that it supports the Karzai Government? Given that a third of Afghanistan is out of bounds to UN personnel without protection and that the draft constitution has not yet been published, is it possible that the constitutional Loya Jirga can go ahead in October?

I reject entirely the suggestion that the US approach is any different from ours and that it is collaborating with the warlords. It is not, and I am very clear, not least from discussions with the US commanders on the ground, that they are providing more assistance overall than any other single nation in eliminating the grip of the warlords and strengthening the power and authority of the Afghan Administration and President Karzai. Among other things, they directly provide the bodyguards for President Karzai.

If he will make a statement on relations with and possible sanctions against Burma. [123867]

I met UN Special Envoy Razali yesterday to discuss the grave situation in Burma. The UK has repeatedly called on the Burmese military regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi immediately, as well as other National League for Democracy members who have been detained since 30 May. The Burmese military regime's response to events so far has been utterly unacceptable. The EU strengthened sanctions against the Burmese leadership on 16 June. We will ensure that pressure is put on the Burmese military regime to move towards democracy and respect for human rights.

I thank the Minister for that answer. In the context of the Prime Minister's comments that trade with Burma is not appropriate, and Colin Powell's remarks that the time has come to turn up the pressure, exactly what further pressure are the UK Government applying, both to the EU and to the UN, to place economic strain and targeted sanctions on the military junta, not the population of Burma, to ensure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and to provide at the very least an impetus for democratic change?

There is considerable discussion, not only with the EU but with the United States and other international partners, including the Chinese, to find out whether we can put more pressure on the regime. In particular, we need to focus on the Association of South East Asian Nations—Burma's neighbours—as it obviously has very close relationships with Burma. We need to ensure that it sends clear messages—I am pleased to say that it has done so recently—to the Burmese regime that it must change its behaviour.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the firm stance taken by Japan at the ASEAN meeting vis-à-vis Burma? What encouragement and support can be given to the Government of Japan, who have not always, it must be said, taken such a firm and principled stance in respect of the Burmese regime?

We have made clear our welcome for the stance taken by Japan and also by a number of other countries in that part of the world. It is traditional in south-east Asia that countries do not criticise each other. Often, therefore, human rights issues do not get raised in the way that we would hope. However, Japan and all the other countries in south-east Asia are making it increasingly clear to the Burmese regime that Aung San Suu Kyi, who is a Nobel peace prize winner, needs to be negotiated with in a serious way, and that progress towards democracy is essential. Currently, the Burmese regime says that it is detaining Aung San Suu Kyi for her own protection—it is detaining Aung San Suu Kyi for its protection and to protect its corrupt regime, and we must ensure that that is exposed.

If I may, I shall read an extract from a letter that I received this morning:

"Really for the first time we are very worried about the safety of our sister-in-law, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. While we obviously welcome the strong messages of condemnation from around the world, we are concerned that the only action taken has been by Japan … We therefore strongly endorse your argument for UN and EU sanctions, but as a first and immediate step would urge HMG to implement a British investment and travel ban."

I will be going to Bali later this month, and I shall certainly press the issue of Burma and the urgent need to release Aung San Suu Kyi. We are seeking to end all British investment in Burma. In particular, I have had a meeting with the chairman of British American Tobacco and have made it clear that our view is that BAT now needs to withdraw its investment in Burma. He has said that he will consider that request, and I hope to have his response in the near future.

If he will make a statement on the middle east road map. [123868]

Implementation of phase 1 of the road map is now taking place. That includes the ceasefire by Palestinian factions and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and Bethlehem, continuing Palestinian reforms and Israeli action to dismantle settlement posts. All of those are positive first steps. Plainly, however, much more will have to be done.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's reports that the Palestinian Authority in Gaza are cleaning anti-Israeli graffiti and murals off the walls in that area? Does not that contrast with the continuing construction of a security wall, much of it on Palestinian land, by the Israelis? On walls in general, what is the Quartet's view as to a permanent wall playing any part in the long-term solution? What is his view on walls in that area?

I have raised, as Her Majesty's ambassador in Tel Aviv has raised, with my interlocutor Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, our widespread concerns in the House and in the country about the building of this security fence, particularly as it unlawfully takes in Palestinian land and cuts the Palestinians off from access to facilities that are theirs. We shall continue to press that issue. The Quartet, as far as I know, has not reached a formal position in respect of the security fence. What the Quartet is actively doing is monitoring, adjudicating and pushing the parties towards a continuous implementation of the road map. All that I would say is that given where we were even two months ago, and the terrible killings on both sides and among both communities, the progress that has been made, and the relationship built up, particularly between Abu Mazen and Prime Minister Sharon, is remarkable. We must do everything that we can to support the process.

Given that we can all take pleasure in the fact that there is at least some progress and cautious optimism that America is at last fully engaged and genuinely determined to push forward the process, does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bedrock of any solution must be security? To that end, will he determine what further efforts the British Government may make to assist the Palestinians, whose security arrangements—in many respects through no fault of their own—are not nearly good enough? Will he consider whether there are places to which assistance could be given by the police staff college and other police and military bodies to train the Palestinian police and security forces to help Abu Mazen's positive progress?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent suggestions. We are already doing a lot, but I shall take those suggestions forward and write to him.

Is not the truth of the matter that the structure is not a fence or a wall but an obstacle to peace, especially because it cuts so deeply into Palestinian areas? If the fence were to be built, would it not be better if it were built on the 1967 border, in which case the Israeli Labour party, all Palestinians and the whole of Europe would probably help to build the thing?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The issue is not so much the fence itself—the Israeli Labour party has also proposed that—but the site of the fence and the obstacle that it puts in the way of the ordinary lives of ordinary Palestinians.

Having last week visited Israel and the west bank with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), may I confirm the positive, if necessarily cautious, change of attitude to the road map on both sides? The realisation that the United States means business has opened the window to progress but, nevertheless, the road map requires difficult actions from both sides. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore join me in congratulating both Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen on their inspiring joint press conference in Jerusalem last week and on restoring the eight ministerial joint commissions to promote agreement on local issues? Will he persuade his European colleagues to be even-handed in giving support to both sides and wholehearted in backing President Bush's bold effort to achieve a secure Israel and a viable Palestine?

Of course, and as I have already done, I congratulate both leaders on really impressive statesmanship, especially when one takes account of the severe opposition that each has faced from within their own territories. The establishment of the eight ministerial commissions is important because there must be daily intercourse among Palestinians and Israelis if they are ever to live side by side in peace and security. I also tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the European Union has repeatedly and consistently welcomed and backed the position of the United States. It is working closely with the United States, in addition to the United Nations and the Russian Federation in the Quartet.

It was clear from my meeting with Abu Mazen a week ago that his biggest problem when controlling terrorism stems from Iranian-sponsored and directly funded support for terrorist activity in both the west bank and Israel itself. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Iran, with its stated aim of trying to destroy Israel, poses a very real threat to the peace process, and did he raise the matter when he was in Iran last week? What steps can he take to help to halt the dangerous undermining of Abu Mazen and the road map?

I did indeed raise the matter with my interlocutors when I was in Iran last week, and I pointed out that the situation is unacceptable not only because of disruption to progress toward the implementation of the road map, but because it is counterproductive for Iran. For example, progress on the trade and co-operation agreement that Iran wants with the European Union will partly be judged on whether it continues to support unacceptable rejectionist terrorist groups in Israel and the occupied territories. We continue to press, and to apply pressure on. the Iranians.

What measures the Government will take to combat piracy. [123869]

The United Kingdom is working hard for a concerted and effective approach to combat piracy. We are making progress through the UN, with political and international legal initiatives. Together with our EU partners, we have taken a lead in promoting practical co-operation against piracy.

The matter is serious, as the Minister rightly implies. It is not the romantic piracy that we see on films. The problem is especially serious in African and Asian waters, where bulk carriers, containers, cargo ships, oil tankers and other vessels have been hijacked and their crews seized and terrorised. Will the Minister consider taking further action through the International Maritime Organisation and other international bodies?

My right hon. Friend is right—it is a serious issue. We work closely with international maritime organisations. The key is to ensure that countries with nationals who engage in piracy take the problem seriously. We have worked with them to ensure that they protect shipping in and adjacent to their waters. I am glad to say that recently there have been some successful prosecutions. India prosecuted 14 Indonesian pirates, who received long prison sentences. Long prison sentences were also handed out in China. Indonesia handed out prison sentences, too, although they were rather shorter than we would like. Those are examples of countries that are beginning to take the problem seriously.

Whether the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes originated within his Department. [123871]

No. The claim in the September dossier that the Iraqi military could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being given an order to do so was based on intelligence material, assessed as reliable by the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Is the Select Committee right in saying that the 45-minute claim came from a single uncorroborated source, which was even wrongly quoted in the September dossier? Why was it given such prominence and by whom? Did the Foreign Secretary show a lack of discernment about that very dodgy claim, or is his responsibility for foreign security services purely nominal? Should there not be scarlet faces in Whitehall over the poor quality intelligence, poorly used?

The intelligence relating to the 45 minutes was subjected to the same rigorous assessment by the Joint Intelligence Committee as all other intelligence is. There was no interference by anyone else, as the Foreign Affairs Committee acknowledged in its report yesterday.

But as of today, does the Foreign Secretary still believe that Iraq was capable of launching chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes? If so, on what evidence is that based?

Yes, I do. The evidence was before the House very clearly indeed on 18 March. It was overwhelmingly open-source evidence and it was clearly set out. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House that we need to recall that between September and November, there was the most intensive discussion internationally about whether Iraq posed a threat. Every single member country of the United Nations, including Russia, France and China, as well as the US and UK, concluded and asserted in resolution 1441 that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security on account of its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, its unlawful missile systems and its defiance of the will of the United Nations. It was because of Iraq's failure actively and immediately to co-operate with the inspectors that the House rightly made the decision to take military action on 18 March. It was right then and it would be right again to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with Alastair Campbell's criticism of the BBC for reporting on the basis of a single, anonymous, uncorroborated source, and if so, should undue prominence have been given to the 45-minute deployment claim—four times in the document, including in the Prime Minister's introduction, as well as in his speech—without any indication that it was based on a single, anonymous, uncorroborated source?

There was a world of difference between the source of the 45-minute claim in that JIC assessment and the source, if such it be, of Mr. Gilligan's claim. Yes, I do agree with Mr. Campbell. The BBC did get it wrong, and it should acknowledge that.

Given the report in today's edition of the Washington Post that states:

"The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa",

I have not read the Washington Post this morning. I will catch up with it later. The hon. Gentleman was a member of rile Foreign Affairs Committee and heard the evidence that I gave not only in public, but in private. As he well knows, the information that was included in the dossier and assessed as reliable relating to the purchase of uranium—not that Iraq had purchased it, but the fact that it had sought to purchase it—was based on sources quite separate from those based on the forged documents, about whose provenance we knew nothing until earlier this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I voted against the Iraqi war five times, I did not vote because of 45 minutes, the right-wing BBC or any of that stuff? I voted against the war on principle, because I thought it was wrong to follow that cowboy Bush into invading another country. If that carries on, we do not know where it will stop. I have been staggered by the number of times I have read about the 45 minutes since I came out of hospital. It was not the central issue. All I would say to my right hon. Friend. and to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, is "Next time you see that cowboy Bush walking towards you, avert your eyes and walk the other way."

Welcome back!

I have already, in private, welcomed my hon. Friend back, and I am delighted to do so publicly. Unlike some Members of the House and many sections of the media, my hon. Friend is not seeking to rewrite history. The idea that the argument between September and March was about the 45-minute claim is utter nonsense. My hon. Friend is entirely correct about that. I invite every Member of the House, on whichever side of the argument they were, to examine what they said, and if they can point to more than two occasions when they mentioned 45 minutes, I will ensure that they are personally given two tickets to the opening game of Burnley football club.

Is not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the sponsoring Department of MI6 and therefore of the intelligence information provided for the relevant dossiers? When, therefore, did the Foreign Secretary first realise that the dodgy dossier was not an intelligence document, but, to coin a phrase, a horlicks? Was it before he allowed United States Secretary Colin Powell to commend it to the United Nations Security Council as "exquisite"? Was it before he allowed the Prime Minister to mislead the country by misrepresenting its status as further intelligence? If he knew that it was not an intelligence document, did he tell them so, and if, as head of the sponsoring Department, he had not been told that this was not an intelligence document, should not some heads roll?

Let me make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman and the House. I have already acknowledged in round terms—[Interruption.] I am answering the questions; hon. Members should pay attention. I have already acknowledged, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done, that mistakes were made about the process relating to the document. They were wrong and we have apologised for that, but the contents of the document were accurate. The Foreign Affairs Committee at no stage challenged the accuracy of that document. Much of the document was drawn from intelligence and the Committee said that its contents were "important". As to the dates when I knew, I will write to him, but—

And put it in the Library.

I shall make it available in Hansard.

When he next plans to visit Cyprus to discuss the Annan plan. [123872]

I hope to visit Cyprus in due course. The Government call on both sides to signal their intentions to negotiate on the basis of Kofi Annan's plan and to commit to putting it to referendums on both sides of the island.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the biggest obstacle to settlement in Cyprus is the dinosaur attitude of Mr. Denktash. Does he also agree that the opening of the green line has cut away one of Mr. Denktash's prime arguments—the suggestion that Greek and Turkish Cypriots cannot get along together? We are seeing wonderful examples of people who are reconciled in facing their problems. Will he do all that he can to ensure that the people of northern Cyprus have the opportunity to express their views through the ballot box later this year in elections to the so-called Parliament in the north free of intimidation? Will he also encourage the opposition in the north to unite, so that the real feelings of the Turkish Cypriots can be expressed, in opposition to Mr. Denktash?

In addition to this oral question, my hon. Friend has tabled some 31 written questions on Cyprus that are answered today. That is a tribute to his diligent work on behalf of the interests of many of his constituents, which the House should acknowledge. He is right: it was wonderful to see the people of Cyprus voting with their feet, as it were, and brushing aside the old political thinking. I believe that they voted with their feet for a reunited Cyprus to join the European Union. We are making these points and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed them with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Gul, last week. We will continue to do so. We hope that the elections will take place in a free and fair way in northern Cyprus. Our ambition remains that a united Cyprus, on the basis of the Annan plan, will join the European Union next May.

With Cyprus joining the European Union on 1 May next year, is it not timely for the British Government to remind the illegal regime in northern Cyprus that people there will not be able to share the benefits of joining the European Union? Would it not also be timely for the British Government to remind the Turkish Government that, if they are serious about wanting to join the European Union, they must play a much more constructive part in reunifying the island and getting rid of the green line?

Those points were made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary virtually word for word in his meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Gul, last week, but there is an additional point. If a reunited Cyprus joins the European Union next May, it will make Turkish an official language of the European Union, as one of the two top figures of state in that reunited Cyprus will have to be a Turkish-speaking Cypriot. I think that that is of great advantage to Turkey as it looks forward to its candidature. That is why we hope that that can happen and think that the way forward must be to support Cyprus's EU ambitions and to put to one side the anti-European hostility that features in so much of our press in this country.

Would my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that for the next academic year the English School in Nicosia is, once again, inviting Turkish students to study with their Greek compatriots? It so happens that Rauf Denktash is an alumnus of that school. Would my hon. Friend remind the Turkish Government that the 35,000 troops who are on the island are supposed to be there to protect the interests and human rights of those very people whose voice is not being heard—the Turkish Cypriots— and that they should cleanse the electoral rolls before December to ensure that the elections are valid and give full and authentic voice to the Turkish Cypriot community?

One would have to be deaf and blind not to sense from northern Cyprus the desire to see their island reunited. I was not aware of the initiative by the school in Nicosia to offer places to Turkish students; I hope that Turkish will become used like Greek all over the island. There is still a window of opportunity. We as a Government and, I think, all hon. Members urge all the Governments in the region—we must address the Turkish Government, the Turkish Parliament and the Turkish military—to recognise the fact that this is a golden moment to seize. It will be good for Turkey, good for Cyprus and good for the eastern Mediterranean if a united Cyprus can enter the EU next May.

When he last met representatives of the US Administration to discuss Iraq. [123873]

On 27 June, I met National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in London, and on 2 July I met ambassador Paul Bremer, who heads up the coalition provisional authority in Baghdad. On Sunday, I discussed Iraq with Secretary Powell on the telephone. The House will wish to know that the first meeting of the new Baghdad city council took place yesterday. The 37 members of that council were chosen from among the members of the 88 neighbourhood advisory councils of Baghdad. With the launch last week of the Basra city council, every major Iraqi city now has its own local government.

It is a shame that the Foreign Secretary did not have a chance to meet Senator Richard Lugar, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, and who, after visiting Iraq last week, said:

"This idea that we will be in"—

"for just as long as we need to and not a day more … is rubbish … We must reorganise our military to be there a long time."

Frankly, I do not see a huge distinction between the comments of Senator Richard Lugar, whom I know and greatly respect, and what the Prime Minister and I have said. We all recognise that we have a long-term commitment to security in Iraq, but we also have to recognise the importance of reducing our presence, then leaving Iraq altogether as soon as the security situation allows and the Iraqi people wish it.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for many of us the decision to go into Iraq was a question of a choice between the failed policy of containment and the historic opportunity to liberate the Iraqi people from fascist tyranny; and that we in this country who made that choice will know over the next decades that it was right? Does he agree that just as the countries of central and eastern Europe that are now coming into the European Union were liberated by various means, and Germany and Poland were liberated from Nazi tyranny many years ago, we can be proud today that in the long historic sweep ahead of us we will have made a contribution to democracy and freedom for Muslims and Arabs in Iraq and throughout the region?

Yes, I do accept that. The key question for everybody, not least those who, for reasons that I understand, opposed the war, is to ask what condition that region and international peace and security would now be in if, in the face of that defiance of the will of the United Nations, we and the US had walked away. I shall tell hon. Members what the position would be. Saddam Hussein would have been re-empowered and re-emboldened. He would have increased the terror in his country and acted with even greater thoroughness to increase his chemical and biological capabilities and develop his nuclear capabilities. He would have continued to disrupt any chance of an effective peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and increased the threat that he posed to international peace and security. That is the truth and I look forward to newspapers debating that rather than their extraordinary obsession with 45 minutes.

At the St. Petersburg summit, the Prime Minister made much of his exclusive interview with Sky's Adam Boulton to announce, doubtless ever so sincerely, that evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be assembled and given to people.

"just wait and have a little patience".

Why did you vote for the war then?

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asks a pertinent question. [Interruption.] I shall answer the question of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), but, after languishing for 18 years in opposition, I shall also offer the Opposition gratis advice: it would be unwise for them and their reputation if they started to rewrite history, as they are trying to do.

Although the Foreign Secretary is correct in saying that we need more time to look for weapons of mass destruction, the Government could usefully make some interim statements. For example, how long does it take to find whether a nuclear programme and undiscovered nuclear reactors exist? How long does it take to find a chemical factory? The Government could usefully make some initial decisions and determinations now so that we were at least in a better position to know what weapons of mass destruction Iraq did not have even if we do not know what weapons it had.

First, parts of the September document that we published have already been proved true. They include the parts that relate to the shorter-range missile systems and the import of far larger quantities of missile engines than Iraq ever conceded. Indeed, it failed to admit to them when it was forced to make its second set of disclosures on 9 December. I can recall no claim that Iraq had built a nuclear reactor, so my hon. Friend should not invent claims to knock them down.

I agree with what the Foreign Secretary has just said. Does he accept that many who voted as they did on 18 March, and have no regrets, believe that we should not spend more than another 45 minutes on the nauseating nitpicking that has been going on recently?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am in no doubt about that, I know that he is in no doubt about it, and I see from the nods all around him that a large number of Conservative Back Benchers, at least, take the same view. I hope that their advice is passed to the Front Bench, because the Conservative party, which has an honourable history, will simply be a part of history if it tries to rewrite it.

If he will consult people in Nottingham, North on amendment of the draft European Constitution. [123874]

I intend to visit Nottingham later this year as part of a programme of UK visits to raise awareness of EU enlargement. This will include discussion of the draft constitution, which proposes reform and modernisation of the EU to ensure that it can continue to function effectively following enlargement.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the people of Nottingham, North—indeed, the constituents of all Members—can be involved in the consultation, as can all Members themselves, if he allows pre-legislative scrutiny of the European constitution before it goes to the intergovernmental conference? It is vital for Members to be involved before and not after decisions are made. I welcomed the letter I received from the Foreign Secretary saying that he would consider the matter, and hope that in tomorrow's debate he will be able to reassure us that we and our constituents can have a serious input in the IGC before everything is cut and dried.

My hon. Friend is right. I am grateful to him for his practical suggestions, as is my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Office has set up an interactive website, futureofeurope@fco.gov.uk, to allow communication via e-mail.

I am sure that, as part of the consultation process, the Minister will pay close attention to the reports of the European Scrutiny Committee. May I recommend its recent report entitled "The Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments"? Paragraph 55 states:

"We are concerned about the prospect of exclusive EU competence in the 'Conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy' and how this might affect the management of marine resources at all levels."

The hon. Gentleman is a doughty defender of the fishing interests of his constituents, but he is right to draw attention to the fact that under the constitutional treaty there is a strengthened role for national Parliaments. It is important that they should play a central part.

"It is indispensable to our system of government that Parliament should play its full part in all the important acts of state"—[Official Report, 8 December 1941; Vol. 376, c. 1358.]

What consultations he has had with ministerial colleagues regarding Europe-wide efforts to prevent the illegal arms trade. [123875]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently discussed this issue with his counterparts in the General Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union—a discussion that led to the adoption of the basic principles for an EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on 16 June 2003.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given that he has just outlined an EU strategy, what role would Interpol play in catching arms smugglers?

The EU will work through this process in co-operation with Interpol. We have one of the toughest, most open and accountable export licensing regimes in the world, but it is critical that we transplant that on a multilateral basis, which is why we should engage through the EU.

rose—

Order. I point out to the House that we only reached Question 10 today, and it is unfair to those who have taken the trouble to table questions that they are not being called. It would assist me in future if both questions and answers were far briefer, so that we can get further down the Order Paper.