If he will make a statement on the proposed constitution for Afghanistan. [137395]

The draft Afghan constitution was published on 3 November, following a process of popular consultation. It will be discussed and approved at a constitutional Loya Jirga which is expected to take place in Kabul in December.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and it is clear that we have come a long way in the past couple of years, but what assurances can he give the House that the powerful regional warlords will buy into the constitution and the democratic process? That is especially important given that the respected group Human Rights Watch, which is based in New York, said recently that a climate of fear exists in every region of Afghanistan, and that numerous candidates have received death threats and want to stay away from the elections due to take place after the Loya Jirga has been held.

First, it is important to make it clear that significant progress has been made, despite the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. The Afghan economy grew by some 30 per cent. last year. Children—particularly young girls—are back at school, and hundreds of schools, hospitals and clinics have been rebuilt and repaired. Clearly, the security situation outside Kabul is not as good as it is in the capital. We need to work with the Afghan authorities to improve law enforcement, but the draft constitution contains significant safeguards that will ensure human rights and the protection of all the Afghan people. We will work with our Afghan partners to realise that.

I congratulate the Afghan Transitional Authority and the British Government on the progress that has been made to get to a point that many thought would never be reached. I have read the draft constitution in English only, but it contains elements that do not seem comprehensively to protect the rights of women. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that that matter is not for us to choose or determine, so will he say what assistance the Government will give to ensure that Afghan women are present in numbers at the Loya Jirga, that they have security, and that they are able to make their voices heard so that they may determine the rights of Afghan women under the constitution?

May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the significant work that she has done on the rights of women in Afghanistan? She raises an important point: it is for the Afghan authorities to determine these matters, but we provide advice and assistance. When I visited Afghanistan in July, I took the opportunity—as all my colleagues do—to seek out the views of women and to ensure that they are involved in the political process. The draft constitution contains significant safeguards, especially in respect of Afghanistan making it clear that it will abide by the UN charter and the universal declaration on human rights. I welcome my hon. Friend's congratulations on the progress that has been made, but we are entering a critical phase and we must remain focused on the issue.

Earlier this year, a Minister visiting Baghdad said that it was the Government's intention to give the Afghan people a final say on their constitution in a national referendum. Is it still the Government's policy to give the Afghans a say on their new constitution but to deny the British people a say on the European constitution?

It is fascinating to observe that the old stories are still running, even after a change of leadership and of Front-Bench personnel. The previous Conservative Government held no referendum on Maastricht or on other changes, and we will take this issue forward in exactly the same way.

Although we welcome the new constitution as a potential element for stability in Afghanistan, does the Minister agree that it can be only one stabilising element at best, which on its own will not be enough? Does he agree that eliminating opium poppy production—as I saw for myself when I visited Afghanistan in July—would also contribute to future stability and that failure to do so will cause further instability? Given that Britain is officially responsible for international efforts to eradicate that problem and given that, in 2002, the Government promised to reduce poppy cultivation by

"70 per cent. in five years",

rose

Congratulate him on his appointment.

I thank my hon. Friend; I was just about to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion. I think that the hon. Gentleman makes an important—[Interruption.] My apologies. The right hon. Gentleman makes—[Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary makes an important point about the progress that is being made on stability through the draft constitution. Nevertheless, the situation in regard to drug production remains difficult. We have always said that it will be a long haul; a 10-year plan is in place and if the shadow Foreign Secretary considers those countries where there has been significant progress on tackling drug cultivation—for example, in Pakistan and Thailand—he will see that one could not have expected significant progress to have been made by this stage. However, the building blocks, in terms of law enforcement and alternative livelihoods, are in place to create a situation in which we are confident that over the five to 10-year period the problem will be removed.

I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks; I take them in the spirit in which they were intended.

We are very pleased, Michael.

I am always pleased to please the Foreign Secretary.

The specific year to which the shadow Foreign Secretary refers is the year when the Taliban, using all the repressive measures at their disposal, stopped cultivation while continuing to process and traffic to feed the regime financially. If the shadow Foreign Secretary looks at the figures for this year, he will see that, yes, there has been a small increase, and given the experience in Pakistan and Thailand, that is in line with what one would expect at this stage of the redevelopment of Afghanistan. As the infrastructure is improved, there is initially a small increase in production. However, with the other measures that are being taken, especially for alternative livelihoods and for the enhancement of law enforcement throughout the country, we remain confident that the objectives can be met.

If he will make a statement on the recent attack on the Red Cross in Iraq. [137396]

If he will make a statement on his assessment of the future role of aid agencies in Iraq. [137397]

If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [137400]

Life in many parts of Iraq is better than it was before military action began. Power, water and sewerage have been restored. Schools, universities and hospitals are in operation. A new currency has been introduced. Economic activity is rising, as is oil production. Not least, there are now remarkably free and active media, where before information was tightly controlled by the Saddam regime. Opinion polls taken in Iraq show consistently high levels of support for the removal of Saddam by the coalition.

The House will be aware that this is the first time that the Red Cross has been directly attacked. Is it true that the person suspected of co-ordinating those attacks is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam Hussein's No. 2? Will there be an increase in the amount of intelligence available to find out about that?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is the first time, so far as I know, that ICRC offices anywhere have been attacked. The ICRC has had an extremely fine record of working for people in a number of conflict situations. As Dr. Kellenberger told me this morning, it is always first in, last out, and it has an exceptional reputation for integrity and independence from the occupying powers, as is required of it given its responsibilities to secure the enforcement of the Geneva conventions.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the aid agencies on the work that they carry out in Iraq in very difficult circumstances, as I experienced a few weeks ago? What contingency plans does he have to ensure that humanitarian aid continues to be delivered to the Iraqi people?

I do indeed know of my hon. Friend's experience in Basra as a member of the parliamentary forces partnership arrangement. I am extremely grateful to him for spending three days in a tent in Basra, experiencing life with the military there. We are working very hard indeed through the coalition and now increasingly through the civilian Government, under the governing council and the Iraqi ministries, to ensure that aid gets through. The proof of that is that so much of life is now much better, not just than it was in the immediate aftermath of the military action but well before it, not least as a result of the better partnership between the coalition authorities and the aid agencies, many of which continue to use their local staff.

The Foreign Secretary will know better than anyone that there was some dispute over the legal basis of the invasion of Iraq, but I know that he takes second place to no one in his desire to rebuild both the global coalition against terrorism and the United Nations. Can he tell the House whether—in case we were ever to take on a murdering butcher in future—he is working on restoring and strengthening the legal basis on which the UN and, indeed, a coalition of nations might act?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says and the manner in which he says it. The legal argument about whether military action was justified in respect of Iraq emphasised the fact that the legal basis for military action contained in the UN charter, which was agreed just after the last world war, is no longer fully adequate to cope with today's threats. It copes very well with the traditional threats of action being taken by one sovereign nation against another, but it no longer copes with the new set of threats from rogue and/or failing states, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. How exactly we resolve that is difficult, but it is a matter to which we are applying ourselves, to which the United States is applying itself and to which the European Union in its important draft security strategy, to which we have contributed, is also applying itself, and I undertake to keep the House informed of developments.

Is it not a simple truth that the efforts to bring about the reconstruction of Iraq and to establish democracy there simply cannot be allowed to fail? Is it not equally true that the achievement of those objectives is likely to take a much higher degree of commitment than was first envisaged? Do not those facts require the British Government to be entirely honest with the British people about how long that may take and how much it may cost?

We are not going to allow our efforts to fail. We are absolutely determined about that, and it is interesting that the whole international community is of the same opinion, whatever view may have been taken about the military action in the first place. We have been as explicit as we can with the British public, as we are required to be and as we must be, about the long-term prospects. The truth is that I cannot say how long we will have to stay in Iraq, any more than anyone could have said how long we would be in Kosovo or Bosnia. But I can say that we will be there until the job is completed. I hope very much that, in a short while, we will be there at the invitation of a sovereign Iraqi Administration.

When the reconstruction plans for Iraq were promulgated, it was assumed that much of the cost of reconstruction would come from Iraq's own oil. Because of the disruption, that is not happening, and consequently donors must give more money and the Department for International Development's budget has been raided to the tune of £100 million, which will mean a withdrawal of UK bilateral development aid to most of Latin America, central Asia and elsewhere. When does the Foreign Secretary anticipate that Iraq will be able to start paying something towards its own reconstruction costs?

I am afraid that I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. All the oil revenues are paid into the Iraqi development fund, which, under resolution 1483, is explicitly for the benefit of the Iraqis and nobody else. It was always anticipated that in addition to the revenues that the Iraqis might be able to generate, because of the huge damage done to the infrastructure of Iraq and the squandering of its wealth, a substantial international aid effort would be required, including contributions from the United Kingdom. Nor do I accept for a second that DFID's funds have been raided to pay for reconstruction, which is now a very high priority. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that we have more than doubled our aid programme overall in the last six years, from the shadow of what it should have been when we came to office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it very clear that 90 per cent. of the funds of DFID, which are related to poverty alleviation, remain entirely untouched.

Is it not fundamental, as was recognised at Nuremberg in 1945, that whatever crimes men may or may not have committed, they are entitled to a trial? Why has not a trial started of Tariq Aziz and others? In the case of Tariq Aziz, is it on account of his medical condition?

I accept the basis of my hon. Friend's point that it is fundamental that when there is evidence against people, they must be subject to proceedings, and steps are being taken to establish appropriate tribunals within Iraq.

We share the general concern at the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. Does the Foreign Secretary share the view of his Government representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock that the current security threat emanates largely from elements originating from outside Iraq, and can he identify those elements? In the light of what he had to say about intelligence earlier, does he also share United States administrator Paul Bremer's analysis in The Times yesterday that the terrorist attacks will

"be more of a problem in the months ahead unless the intelligence gets better"?

May I repeat the congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his survival in the shadow Cabinet, a matter on which I am something of an expert? May I also say that I noticed in The Daily Telegraph that the new team has been described as "lean and mean"? Although I have great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman's many sterling qualities, lean and mean is not the first description that comes to mind. He asked me two specific questions. First, yes, I do agree with Sir Jeremy Greenstock. We cannot tell for certain, and if we knew for certain, dealing with the terrorists would be that much easier. We believe, however, that terrorist actions are, in turns, taken either by remnants of the Saddam regime, by outside terrorists or by a mix of both. Ambassador Bremer was entirely correct to say that terrorism will become more of a problem unless intelligence is improved, and a considerable effort is now being made by the coalition and coalition forces to do just that.

What the Government's policy is in respect of the Kurdish population in northern Iraq and other parts of the region. [137398]

Relationships between the Kurdish population in the north and other parts of the region are a matter for the Iraqis. Representatives of the Government and the coalition provisional authority meet regularly with a wide variety of political groups in Iraq, including representatives of the Kurdish population, to hear their views. We are fully committed to maintaining relationships with the Kurdish population throughout Iraq.

Is my hon. Friend in a position to give the Government's response to the unanimous decision of the Kurdish National Assembly to assert that in the new Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan should be regarded as a single federal region embracing Kirkuk and Mosul, and that it should be protected against both threats and interference from any neighbouring states?

We have made it clear from the beginning of the process that we believe that the territorial integrity of Iraq should be protected. Nevertheless, we try to uphold the human rights of all Iraqis, including the Kurds. The appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) as the Prime Minister's special envoy on human rights in Iraq has helped significantly in that regard.

As the Prime Minister made plain last night in his speech at Guildhall, our Government are working in close cooperation with the American Government on all aspects in Iraq. In view of that, will the Minister confirm that when President Bush is here next week, he will address both Houses of Parliament, as Presidents Clinton and Reagan did, and as our Prime Minister addressed Congress?

Order. That is far too wide.

Is not an important area in which the Kurds could work together with others in Iraq—Shi'a, Sunni, Turkomen, Assyrians, Christians and Jews—the federal trade union movement that is developing quickly in Iraq, in which people work together as teachers, railwaymen and oil workers? What is being done to facilitate the newly emerging movement, which is in desperate need of such facilitation?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question because he has long argued that a way to confront some of the historical divisions that exist is through the legitimate pursuit of trade union activity. In that regard, I am pleased that we in the Foreign Office are considering all that we can do to help. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the TUC general secretary and other leading trade unionists last week to discuss that very issue.

Going back to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), may I suggest to the Minister that now is the time for the occupying powers to call together a true international convention to decide what is to happen to the Kurdish people in the north of Iraq? Many of us were concerned about the plight of those people prior to and during the conflict. Thankfully, things are not as bad as we feared, but it is time to regularise the position, and for the self-determination of those people to be recognised by the international community rather than the occupying forces.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that improvements are being made in Iraq and I understand his concerns about the position of the Kurds. We take that up at every opportunity with all our partners in Iraq and the Iraqi governing council. However, it is critical that we do not impose solutions from the outside on the constitutional structure that Iraq and the Iraqi people should eventually agree for themselves. That will be critical, but the Iraqis must take the process forward.

What discussions he has had with representatives of the Governments of (a) Pakistan and (b) India on progress in dealing with the Kashmir situation. [137399]

If he will make a statement about cross-border terrorism in India. [137401]

I spoke to both the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers by telephone on 29 October, and met Pakistani Foreign Minister Kasuri on 4 November in London.

At a time when we see some encouraging signs between India and Pakistan, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we give every encouragement to both countries to resolve a problem that has existed for 54 years too long? It is a major problem between those two countries and for that part of the world. Does he agree that it would perhaps be helpful if the United Nations were able to monitor equally on both sides of the line of control and publish openly in the public arena its view on the incursions or alleged incursions on either side?

My hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in the continuing dispute, is right to point out that it has gone on for 54 years and remains unresolved. However, there are some hopeful signs, and although there is long-standing suspicion between both sides, the fact that a number of confidence-building measures are already in place is a good augury for the future. I promise my hon. Friend and the House that we in the United Kingdom will remain actively engaged with this, and offer to help both sides in any way they wish. It is a bilateral dispute, but with obvious international implications.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has welcomed the 12 confidence-building measures proposed by the Indian Government, but will he do all that he can to ensure that Pakistan ceases its support for cross-border terrorism, and hands over for trial the suspects behind many of the terrorist outrages that have taken place in India, including Dawood Ibrahim, who was responsible for the 1993 bomb that killed 300 people in Mumbai, Masood Azhar, leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, leader of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, who is wanted in connection with the attacks on the Indian Parliament building? Those people are being harboured in Pakistan, and if Pakistan is serious about trying to take the issue forward, they have to be handed over and properly tried.

We have taken our own action with respect to some of those suspects to freeze their assets. When I was Home Secretary, I proposed the proscription, which the House accepted, of a number of terrorist organisations operating from the Pakistani side of the border. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we continue to encourage the Pakistani authorities to ensure that the obligations that they have publicly given to crack down on infiltration across the border into the Indian side of the line of control are observed in practice.

I share the Foreign Secretary's support for the advances that have been made. However, does he accept that internal terrorism, both in India and Pakistan, is not helping the relationship between the two countries?

Of course I accept that, and we applaud the work of Prime Minister Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Advani in dealing with terrorism within India, and all the courageous efforts by President Musharraf to deal with terrorism, not least al-Qaeda terrorism within Pakistan.

I note that in response to two recent written parliamentary questions the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues declined the opportunity to say that Pakistan is not a state sponsor of terrorism. However, despite all President Musharraf's efforts, the fact of the matter is that Pakistan Government agencies, including the Pakistan army, use artillery fire to cover the infiltration and extraction of terrorists from Kashmir. Should it not therefore be explicitly stated that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism and that that behaviour must stop?

We have to make our own judgments about that, but I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—we acknowledge the undertakings that the Pakistani Government have given publicly about ending cross-border terrorism. We and the United States in particular, but the whole international community as well, look to the Government of Pakistan to ensure that those undertakings are properly carried out.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a very sad aspect of the dispute is that two of the poorest countries in the world can provide themselves with large nuclear armaments and other weapons yet cannot afford to give their poorest people pure water, housing, and basic health care and education?

I agree with my hon. Friend that disproportionate expenditure on defence diverts much-needed resources from other matters. The United Kingdom played its part in helping both sides to pull back from what was literally the brink of nuclear war early in the summer last year. We shall continue to play that part and to urge both India and Pakistan to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty, and we look forward to a situation in which there are no nuclear weapons in that part of the world.

What recent consultations he has had with the Government of Cyprus concerning the reunification of the island. [137403]

The Foreign Secretary and I met the Cypriot Foreign Minister, Georgios Iacovou, on 3 November. We told him that we hoped that all obstacles and opposition to the Annan plan would be dropped in order to allow a united Cyprus to enter the European Union on 1 May next year.

Is there now a case for making settlement of the Cyprus question a precondition of accession talks with Turkey for membership of the European Union? In particular, can the Minister envisage a situation in which Turkish Cypriots are criminalised by Turkey as a result of their taking EU passports as citizens of the new Republic of Cyprus?

Clearly, any citizen of Cyprus who wants a passport that will become an EU passport after 1 May should be allowed to get one. Settlement is not a condition in the sense that the Turkish Government have to meet the Copenhagen criteria within the next 12 months to start accession talks, but it is clear in everybody's mind in Europe that, for Turkey, the road to Europe lies to some extent through Cyprus. That is why we say to the Turkish Government that they would gain enormously from a united Cyprus, one of whose chief officials would be a Turkish-speaking Cypriot sitting at the table negotiating with the Government in Ankara. Although it is not a condition, the political reality is that a settlement of the Cyprus problem and a united Cyprus entering the European Union next May would be an inestimable boost to Turkey's aspirations to European Union membership.

In any recent deliberations about the future of Cyprus and reunification, has the matter of Britain's sovereign bases been discussed?

The issue of the sovereign bases is raised, but they are precisely that—sovereign bases. I think that the Cypriot Government understand full well that Britain's sovereignty over those bases remains absolute.

The Minister has already talked about the political reality of the link between reunification of Cyprus and Turkey's accession to the EU. In that context, is he aware of the growing calls for a question on Turkish accession to the EU from those demanding a referendum on the EU constitution in France? Does he agree that that is a very dangerous move?

I regret the fact that those calling for a referendum in France are increasingly saying that one of the issues on the referendum ballot paper should be Turkish accession to the EU, with a view, of course, to getting a no vote. That shows the dangers that arise once one goes down the plebiscite road and ignores the parliamentary road of ratifying the EU constitution. I think that Turkish accession would be greatly hindered if the populist plebiscite campaigns against the European constitution treaty gain real force in Europe or in this country.

Given the report of the European Commission that the resolution of the problem of Cyprus is a serious obstacle to Turkey's accession to the EU, which we fully support, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the outcome of the important elections in north Cyprus, every effort must be made to get a resolution in the next six months, before our friend the Republic of Cyprus formally joins the EU on 1 May?

I agree very much, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has put forward very positive positions in discussing Cyprus and Turkey in his travels around Europe. I am glad that he has been maintained in his position as shadow Minister for Europe. It is vital that everyone in Ankara and Nicosia, north and south of the green line, do all that they can to seize this historic opportunity to allow a united Cyprus to enter the European Union. I believe that that will give a tremendous boost to Turkey's aspirations to start accession talks in due course.

What further discussions he has had with the Iranian Government about Iran's nuclear capacity since his visit there. [137404]

I discussed a range of issues of mutual interest with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, on 4 November, including the agreement that the three European Union Foreign Ministers had reached with the Government of Iran on 21 October. The next stage in the process, which we all hope will lead to full compliance by Iran with its obligations, follows the publication of the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday and its consideration by the IAEA board on 20 November.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response and I congratulate him on his successful visit to Iran with his two European counterparts. Can he confirm that Iran will abide by the agreement that he and his counterparts reached while they were in Iran, and stop the enrichment of uranium?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Whether Iran has finally decided to abide by its obligations is a matter that will be considered in the light of the IAEA report, which became available only yesterday. It raises some serious issues, which we are studying. I am glad to note that yesterday the Iranian Government informed the director general of the IAEA that they had decided to suspend, with effect from yesterday, all reprocessing and enrichment-related activities in Iran. Specifically, they had decided to suspend all activities on the Natanz site; not to produce feed material for enrichment processes; and not to import enrichment-related items—an undertaking that we had sought and which the Iranian Government had given in the agreement reached on 21 October. I am glad also that the Government of Iran have made what appears to be a much fuller disclosure than they have ever made before. We all now have to analyse it and will reach decisions—I hope—on 20 November.

While I do not wish to denigrate the good work being carried out by Mohamed el-Baradei and his colleagues at the IAEA, some worrying questions remain unresolved—not least the Iranian definition of enriching uranium, which is too narrow. What progress is being made in tracing the country that originally supplied Iran with the equipment that has enabled it to produce highly enriched uranium? Once that country is identified, what action will be taken against it?

On the latter point, great effort is being made to identify the country concerned and appropriate action will be taken, according to the nature of the information that we have and its provenance. On the first point, everyone accepts that there have been worrying questions about Iran's previous nuclear-related activities. Dr. el-Baradei has been worrying about that, which is why he has been so involved—alongside the rest of us—in hoping to secure a full and complete disclosure in respect of past activities, as well as for future obligations.

While I support the Government's attempts to get Iran to abide by the non-proliferation treaty, will my right hon. Friend inform the House what this country and the Government are doing to ensure that we too abide by the non-proliferation treaty, to which we are a signatory, and in particular in relation to article 6, under which we are committed to negotiate away in good faith our nuclear weapons of mass destruction?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, but as one of the permanent five members of the Security Council, for historical reasons that the House understands, we are in a special category within the treaty as a nuclear weapon state. However, we fully acknowledge our obligations under article 6 and all the other articles. Indeed, the UK is further ahead in implementing its obligations under article 6, and the other articles, than almost any other country in a comparable position.

May I say on behalf of the Opposition that we welcome the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Iran and the Government's constructive engagement with this important issue? But at a time when the negotiations between the international community and the IAEA and the Iranian Government over their nuclear capacity are so delicately poised, how helpful does the Foreign Secretary think that it was for the Prime Minister recently to describe Iran as a rogue repressive state? Is not this a time for clear-headed statesmanship rather than headline-seeking megaphone diplomacy?

I think that congratulations to the hon. Gentleman are in order, and I am happy to offer them.

If he will make a statement about Government policy towards Western Sahara. [137405]

The Government seek a just and durable outcome to this long-running dispute that allows the people of Western Sahara to exercise the right to self-determination. We fully support the efforts of the United Nations and the United Nations Secretary-General and his personal envoy, James Baker, and wish to see both sides become flexibly engaged in the search for a long-term solution.

Given that Western Sahara is the last open file at the United Nations Decolonisation Committee, and that the Polisario front has accepted the Baker peace plan, what steps are the Government taking to urge the Moroccan Government also to accept the plan?

We are urging both sides to take the Baker plan seriously. The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed it in resolution 1495. The plan is a compromise—it offers something, but not everything, to both sides—and we want them to get together to sort out its implementation.

What discussions he has held with other Foreign Ministers on the effect of the security situation in Iraq on the prospects of aid agencies continuing their work in Iraq. [137407]

The Foreign Secretary regularly discusses Iraq, including its security and reconstruction, with his counterparts. Throughout Iraq, security for most people is improving. We will not be deterred in our efforts to rebuild the country—indeed, we are doing all that we can to ensure that the security that is required for the aid agencies to do their work continues.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but does he accept that the targeting of aid agencies in Iraq is a very grave development? What practical steps can the Government take at ground level to enable those agencies to carry out their crucial work?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We certainly deplore the targeting of aid agencies. Whatever view one has taken on this conflict, it is abominable to see those forces targeting people who are doing their level best to bring security and relief to the Iraqi people. To provide some context, however, security is improving throughout Iraq for most Iraqis—indeed, 80 per cent. of attacks take place in a limited area to the north and north-west of Baghdad. Nevertheless, concerns remain, and we are doing our level best to help in those circumstances. The coalition provisional authority is working closely to improve security for those important aid agencies and we recently committed £6 million to that end through the Department for International Development.

Is the Minister aware of the report published this morning by Medact, the medical charity, which outlines the real difficulties that are faced by aid agencies and local Iraqi authorities in re-establishing public health programmes? In particular, does he agree with its authors' conclusion that, for the security situation to be improved sufficiently for that to happen, the lead must be taken not by the occupying forces, but by the United Nations?

That report was published this morning, and we are studying it in some detail. I would not want to underestimate the fact that there are still difficulties on the ground in Iraq. Nevertheless, one of the worst aspects of Saddam's regime was the appalling public health situation, and despite the difficulties, real improvements are taking place. That is testified to by the views of ordinary Iraqis, especially those advanced in opinion polls, which show that more than two thirds back the actions that were taken and want those that are being taken to continue.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the intergovernmental conference. [137408]

Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and I updated the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference in detail on progress at the IGC. The IGC has so far met four times. In its latest discussion, it covered reform of the system of Council presidencies, the scope of qualified majority voting and non-institutional issues. The next meeting of the IGC will be on 18 November.

I am grateful for that reply. The assumption is that the IGC should be completed under the Italian presidency. Assuming that the Minister agrees that it is more important to get the text right than to finish it, and therefore that having to wait until the feast of the epiphany would not be a disaster, have there been any discussions with the Irish Government about how they might take the IGC over if it had to run on into their presidency?

I am not sure that we should wait for three wise kings to solve the problem of the intergovernmental conference. We and our European partners would like to see it finished under the Italian presidency, but that will require compromise in respect of the acceptance of the positions that 25 sovereign states—including this one—are putting forward. We are, however, keeping our fingers crossed and aiming for completion under the Italian presidency.

Following close examination of the text, is the Minister convinced that this country's energy supplies will be safe?

Article III-130 of the proposed constitutional treaty states:

"the Council of Ministers shall unanimously adopt European laws or framework laws establishing … measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply."

"Union policy on energy shall aim to … ensure the functioning of the energy market",

"ensure security of energy supply in the Union".

Does the Minister agree that the proposals in the draft constitution to strengthen the Council of Ministers underline the fact that the EU is an association of independent sovereign states?

That is right. It is important to nail at the Dispatch Box the propaganda lies of those who talk about a European superstate. We are talking about 25 independent sovereign states coming together to strengthen the workings of Europe. For 500 years, it has been English, then British, policy not to allow a continental grouping to come together from which we would be isolated or in which we would have no influence. I find it odd that the isolationist tendency on the Conservative Front Bench has been strengthened in the reshuffle. We shall maintain Britain as an active partner in Europe and defeat the Tory isolationists.

In yesterday's Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, the Foreign Secretary gave an assurance that the UK Government would seek to rescind or amend the controversial energy chapters that have already been mentioned in this question. Will the Minister for Europe repeat the commitment of the UK Government to have those chapters removed entirely from the draft treaty? When will Government representatives be able to come to the House to confirm that that has happened?

As I have said, I shall receive a delegation of hon. Members on this issue. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the energy industry when he seeks to remove any reference to the need for an open market in energy, because that is something that the British Government have always stressed in any discussions on this matter. A requirement for unanimity is contained in article III-130. However, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's persistence in the Standing Committee. The Committee, which was set up by the House, has had two sittings. Just one Conservative Member attended the first, and only two out of the 165 attended last night. They talk about the importance of Europe, yet they do not even turn up at the Standing Committee set up to discuss the issue. That is a disgraceful performance.

What recent representations he has received about travel advice for UK citizens travelling to Saudi Arabia. [137409]

On 24 October, I agreed changes to Foreign Office travel advice to Saudi Arabia to say that we believe that

"terrorists may be in the final phases of planning attacks".

I am sure that all hon. Members want to associate themselves with the actions taken by the Foreign Secretary following the deplorable attack at the weekend. Given the travel advice to British nationals, can he update the House on the effectiveness of that advice? How will it impinge on commercial activities between the two kingdoms?

Terrorist attacks are designed to disrupt the economies and ordinary life of the countries in which they take place. That is an inevitable consequence of the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia. That said, the Saudi authorities are doing everything they can to detect and deter those terrorists. There is a large expatriate British population in Saudi Arabia, as well as a great number of visitors. Our travel advice is constantly updated. We take it very seriously indeed. It can only be as good as the intelligence we receive, and all the time we have to set a balance between ensuring that, above all, proper warning is given, as we were able to give on 24 October in respect of the information that we had received, while, at the same time, not doing the terrorists' job for them, which is to bring normal life completely to a halt.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his intelligence sources on their timely action. Does he agree that one reason why Saudi Arabia is suffering is the fact that it is now seriously addressing the terrorist problem in its midst? Will he do everything he can to encourage the Saudi authorities not to be deterred by those terrorist responses, because only when the cancer is cut out will it be safe for people to travel to that country and to live in the countries of the middle east?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. I am in absolutely no doubt of the overwhelming determination of the Saudi Government and the Saudi authorities to detect the terrorists who committed those outrages in order to deter others. Significantly, this action has been condemned in unqualified terms by senior religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, which is a message not only to those in Saudi, but across the whole Islamic world.

What recent discussions he has had with the Israeli Government about the building of the security wall. [137410]

On a number of occasions, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear to the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister our concerns about the route of the fence. It should not be built in the occupied territory. Baroness Symons raised the matter with the Israeli Foreign Minister during her visit to Israel on 30 September. Indeed, we have taken numerous other opportunities to raise this critical concern.

I welcome my hon. Friend's clear statement on the Government's behalf about the construction of the wall, but he will know that the continued construction of a separation wall, as well as inflicting misery on the Palestinians, particularly those living near the wall, is also jeopardising whatever slim hopes are left for a middle east peace process. In the light of that, will he tell the House what the Government are doing to try to take forward the middle east peace process?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I would not wish to underestimate the fact that we are gravely concerned about the prospects for peace in the middle east. In that regard, it is vital that both sides realise how much is at stake. We certainly remain fundamentally committed to the road map. It is the only mechanism that we can see for the issue to be resolved. If such a structure did not exist, it would have to be invented. It is therefore critical that the Palestinian Authority make efforts to stop the terrorists and, at the same time, that the Israelis commit, through parallel moves, to tackling settlements, the fence, freedom of movement and the halting of extra-judicial killings.

The Minister rightly says that he is fully committed to the success of the road map. Does he accept that, in the view of many people, it will not succeed without a major diplomatic initiative? It must be properly resourced, and there must be full commitment on the part of a major worldwide institution, such as the United Nations or the European Union, rather than the current rather under-resourced effort.

The implementation of the road map remains a critical diplomatic priority for the Government. We raise it at every opportunity. A strong United States-led commitment to the road map-based process is also critical. I believe that that commitment is there; certainly the case for it has not changed. Additionally, we need a strong role for the Quartet—closely following road map implementation through the reports of monitors, and making an extra effort when it detects problems or deficiencies.