We shall conduct the debate with the flexibility that has become the characteristic of cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall. Nevertheless, it will be helpful if hon. Members are brief with their supplementary questions and Ministers are brief with their answers, so that the debate can flow as fully as possible. That is particularly important if we are to deal with as many questions as have been tabled, but I will endeavour to ensure that there is the proper breadth of discussion where that is needed, rather than regard question 17 as a winning post that must be reached at all costs.

I am pleased to have the opportunity, for the second year in a row, to open a debate on Britain's position within the UN. The debate will demonstrate, in particular, our commitment to engaging far more on critical issues. When we undertook the debate last year, we were at a critical juncture. The UN had been divided over military action in Iraq. It had endured the worst ever attack on a UN operation, with the murder in Iraq of 22 UN personnel, including, tragically, Sergio Vieira de Mello, one of the world's greatest ambassadors for peace. A heated debate continued over how the UN should respond to international crises, whether those were terrorist attacks, humanitarian disasters or environmental devastation. There has been a further escalation in terrorist activity—not just the carnage of suicide bombings in the middle east but the despicable kidnap and murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and the frankly sickening scenes of children being held hostage and brutally murdered in Beslan. Conflict, poverty and disease are still ravaging parts of Africa.

That is a grim and distressing picture, but I believe that there are signs of hope. I am encouraged by the unity among UN member states in dealing with Afghanistan, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and I commend the consensus among UN members on action to fight terrorism, prevent conflict and cope with natural disasters.

The UN's role in Iraq has also been crucial. Ambassador Brahimi's patient and determined negotiations with Iraq's political and religious groups were, I believe, instrumental in forming a political authority and paving the way for the UN's role in preparing for elections for a representative and democratic Iraq. The United Nations team, under the secretary-general's special representative Ashraf Qazi, is now working with the Iraqi independent elections commission to prepare for elections in January.

Returning to Iraq has been an immensely difficult decision for the UN, and in the face of last year's attack the security of UN personnel has been of paramount importance. We and the United States are working closely with the UN to ensure that it gets the security that it needs. I applaud its courage and pay tribute to UN staff and military and civilian personnel from the 30 nations in the multinational force, and to those working for non-governmental organisations, voluntary bodies and businesses, in difficult and dangerous circumstances, to help the people of Iraq.

As we move closer to the January elections the terrorists and insurgents are stepping up their attacks in an attempt to derail the political process. We must do all that we can to stick to the agreed political timetable, in which the elections are vital for a stable and united democracy to take root in Iraq. As the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly said, we need security for elections and elections for security. We are working closely with the Iraqi interim Government, the elections commission, the Iraqi security forces and the UN to ensure that adequate security arrangements are in place for the election period.

The UN has worked tirelessly with the African Union and the European Union to bring about an end to the fighting in the Darfur region and to provide humanitarian assistance to thousands of displaced people. Recent Security Council resolutions have, I believe, sent a clear message to the Sudanese Government and the rebel groups that they must do more to protect the people of Darfur.

The UN has significantly increased its work in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help disarm, demobilise and rehabilitate Congolese combatants. UN experts are now monitoring the arms embargo, which is a vital process in preventing further fighting. In Haiti at the beginning of the year the UN responded rapidly to the breakdown of law and order by deploying, first, a multinational interim force and, then, a longer stabilisation mission to help maintain security and find solutions to the issues that had caused violence.

Today there are more than 53,000 peacekeepers working in 16 UN missions around the world. Yet we all recognise—the UN, individual member states and humanitarian agencies—that we are not doing enough soon enough to prevent conflict from erupting, to build peace, to reconstruct broken nations and, in short, to break the cycle of violence, whether that is caused by age-old political or religious strife, a collapse in law and order, poverty, hunger or disease.

Every conflict, wherever it is, has ramifications for the international community. Extremists are using regional conflicts to spread terror across the globe. International security is at stake, so we have to stop the terrorists. That means stopping the flow of weapons and ensuring that weapons of mass destruction never fall into their hands. It also means, critically, tackling the causes—political, economic and social. That is a huge challenge, which only a massive international effort can meet.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier in the year:

"Global security is our collective responsibility, and we must all engage in this debate."

That is why I believe that the high-level panel, established by the Secretary General, which will report in December, marks a significant step in the way in which the UN approaches today's threats to international peace and security.

I am optimistic that the panel's report will provide ideas for effective collective action in response to those international threats, and give renewed impetus to debates on United Nations reform.

Will the Under-Secretary explain why his paper, Cm 6325, does not once mention the oil-for-food programme and the United Nations' role in it? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that Kofi Annan still refuses to make public the findings of the oil-for-food report? Is not that a disgrace? Should not the public be able to see that information? Would it not help to restore faith in the work of the United Nations?

The oil-for-food programme inquiry, with which we are co-operating, has come up with serious criticisms that it is the responsibility of nation states, through their legal systems, to pursue. The processes are under way and that is the important and correct manner in which to deal with the issues.

We have proposed several ideas on the issues being discussed by the panel, details of which can be found in the annexe to the command paper, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We look forward to an early discussion of the report's recommendations with the United Nations and with other member states.

I said earlier that we need to be more proactive in preventing conflict from erupting in the first place—

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I welcome the second annual report on the United Nations, which was a great initiative by the Government. I refer to the annexe and the reform of the United Nations. People say that if we did not have a United Nations we would need to invent it, but everyone recognises that perhaps it does not work as well as it could, therefore there is need for reform, and I am pleased about the Government's proposals in that respect. Can my hon. Friend reassure us that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on behalf of the Government, is making every effort to ensure some form of consensus, so that Kofi Annan can put a set of proposals for radical reform to the UN in the near future?

The need for consensus, and not consensus of the lowest common denominator, is a key factor that is driving our work at present. We also need to establish the means to take that consensus forward and get agreement.

I do not want the Minister popping up and down in his present condition. He mentioned the important high level panel report, which we look forward to receiving. I believe that it is reporting in December. We are disappointed that the debate on the United Nations has been moved from the Chamber to Westminster Hall. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that after the report is available there will be a debate in the Chamber to discuss the important measures that will no doubt be put before us and to build a consensus from Westminster?

The hon. Gentleman knows that decisions on where debates take place are beyond the respective Front Benches. Nevertheless, his argument is compelling, given the seriousness of the issues, and I hope that if time is available we can discuss them on the Floor of the House.

I said earlier that we needed to be more proactive in preventing conflict from erupting in the first place, which means identifying and analysing specific threats at an early stage. It also means agreeing collectively what is the appropriate course of action. In doing so, we need to mobilise all the resources of the United Nations from the earliest stages of a potential crisis. That requires strong leadership from the United Nations, the political will of its members to sustain UN action over the long term, and UN institutions that are focused on priority action.

The United Nations needs to develop non-military tools for engagement and intervention, including reintroducing the rule of law, support for policing and, where necessary, emergency civilian administration. Where non-military action is insufficient to avert conflict or a humanitarian crisis, the UN needs to agree when military action might be needed. I have often spoken of the urgent need to address the issue; we simply cannot let another Rwanda or Kosovo happen. Three years ago the UK proposed a set of guidelines on intervention for consideration by the Security Council, and now is the time to move the debate forward.

We must also ensure that the UN's counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation mechanisms are sufficiently robust and have the resources to carry through the vital monitoring and support work that they began this year. One of the greatest threats to human security is the estimated 600 million small arms and light weapons in global circulation. Those weapons kill more than 300,000 people a year, many of whom are innocent civilians. The Foreign Secretary rightly made an important announcement recently that the UK would start work soon with international partners on an international arms trade treaty. That is a positive step forward. Taking arms out of circulation would make it easier to combat terrorism and crime and to secure long-term peace and development in areas of conflict.

The UN's peacekeeping efforts, which are universally admired, need to be strengthened to provide more recovery and reconstruction support, thus enabling states to get back on their feet and sustain the peace. Closer co-operation with regional organisations and more effective co-ordination between UN agencies would help make the best use of resources and avoid duplication of peace-building programmes.

Much of the UN's expertise lies in the remarkable work that its agencies have performed for decades in alleviating poverty and supporting the most vulnerable people in the poorest parts of the world. For that to have a lasting effect, the international community must redouble its efforts and increase the resources that it puts into poverty reduction. Reducing poverty and inequality will go a long way to preventing and resolving conflict.

The UK has taken the lead by proposing a new international financing facility, which would and could bring forward aid flows, allowing them to be increased to $50 billion a year in the short term. The UK is already rightly a major contributor to the UN system, in both our engagement and our financial support. UK contributions to the UN in 2003 were more than £623 million, and we are the fourth largest contributor to the UN peacekeeping budget after the United States, Japan and Germany. We supply more troops to UN operations than any other permanent member of the Security Council. That is a record of which all Members can be rightly proud.

We will also use our strong position in the UN to press forward with the reform programme set out by the Secretary-General, so that the UN is structured and resourced to meet the challenges that lie ahead. At the General Assembly last month, the Secretary-General spoke powerfully about extending the rule of law throughout the world as the only way to guarantee freedom for all. I have just returned from New York, where as president of the Security Council I chaired the debate on building justice and strengthening the rule of law. We will continue to support the UN's efforts to put the rule of law firmly at the centre of post-conflict reconstruction.

We will use our presidency of the European Union and our chairmanship of G8 in 2005 to make further progress on a free and fair international trading system, on tackling poverty and disease in Africa and on slowing environmental damage from climate change. We have nevertheless much work to do, but I believe that when we meet again for this debate in a year's time, the UN will have reviewed progress on meeting the important millennium development goals. Only by reaching those goals can we hope to achieve sustainable security and, from there, stability and prosperity for all mankind. As the Secretary-General said at the General Assembly in New York, let us not be found wanting.

We are at an historically important juncture: there is a future that can secure and protect our world, and the United Nations, and the efforts of all the nation states that make up the UN, has to be at the heart of that.

Perhaps the most important issue in protecting our world is nuclear non-proliferation. The command paper to which I have already referred includes warm words about preventing the spread of nuclear technology, but there is a real problem with Iran's verification of its return to the International Atomic Energy Agency. I understand from today's press that talks are continuing on the issue. Will the Minister comment on what the British Government are doing? It seems to me that until we can get a compliant Iran, it will be very difficult to achieve a stable situation in Iraq.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, with France and Germany, we have been at the forefront of efforts to take a constructive stance on Iran and address the concerns that exist about its nuclear capability. We have consistently said that Iran needs to go the whole distance in addressing the international community's concerns, particularly ending any fuel cycle activities and demonstrating that it has done so. That is the challenge for Iran between now and the IAEA board meeting, which I believe takes place towards the end of November. At that stage, we will have to judge whether Iran has made that commitment and reassured the international community. If not, we will have to seek reference to the Security Council.

This is an extremely important debate and I look forward to hearing the contributions from other hon. Members.

It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate. I must put on record our slight disappointment that it has been curtailed to two hours and is taking place in Westminster Hall but, none the less, we welcome it. We certainly welcome the Command Paper that the Government have produced. It is very useful indeed and, in terms of the reform of the United Nations, which I will deal with in a moment, we agree with the broad thrust of the Government's suggestions.

We agree that in the 21st century we need a strong United Nations. I sometimes ask myself what the alternative is to a strong international organisation such as the United Nations—I sometimes even find myself asking that about the European Union. We do not always appreciate everything that it says and does, but what is the alternative? We do not want to return to a 19th-century world of nation-state activity, shifting alliances and unilateralism. Nor do we want the Orwellian nightmare of regional power blocs constantly at war with each other. We need a strong United Nations.

The horrors of world war one and world war two demanded a response of world leaders to set up mechanisms to promote global peace and stability. The challenges are different in this globalising and interdependent world, but they also demand a streamlined and effective modern United Nations—new global architecture to fit a modern world. We support the reform process. We want the UN to be the body that is respected by all and that makes and enforces rules by which we can carry out our international business and achieve global stability. There is no plan B; that body must be the United Nations.

The UN must also be a forum for dialogue. As we know, dialogue is crucial to overcoming misunderstandings and hostility. The fault lines in the world used to be between east and west. It is now much more complex than that, but there are still fault lines, so there is a need for forum and dialogue.

Although the Minister gave an upbeat speech today, for understandable reasons, about the performance of the United Nations, I shall be slightly more critical of aspects of its performance over recent years. Many of us were concerned that the conduct of some members of the Security Council over the recent conflict in Iraq has undermined a great deal of its credibility.

With the honourable exception of the intervention in Afghanistan, which came hot on the heels of the 9/11 outrages, and possibly Haiti, which the Minister mentioned, it is possible to argue that over the past 10 or 15 years, the UN has notched up precious few successes. Recent cases include Iraq and Kosovo, where it was unable to agree, Bosnia, where it is rightly claimed that it moved too slowly, Rwanda, where it was looking the wrong way, Israel-Palestine, where it has been powerless to intervene, Zimbabwe, where it seems unable to intervene, and Darfur in Sudan, where its intervention is now welcome but has been far too long in coming. Judging by its performance, the UN's credibility is under threat, which is why the reform process is so important.

I recognise that there has been much positive work and I pay tribute, as the Minister did, to the important work of Lakhdar Brahimi in putting together the Iraqi Interim Government. Most of us were impressed that that was so well done and has stood the test of time over the past few months. I also pay tribute to the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We hope that that will have a positive outcome and we support continued intervention in Iran, trying to persuade that country to discontinue its uranium enrichment programme—an absolutely crucial process. The Minister will have our support for taking effective action on that issue.

In the debate about reform of the United Nations there is a vital question that I do not believe the Government have asked in their Command Paper: what is the United Nations for? It was put together in a different age and has grown like Topsy ever since. Although the Minister gave us a quick tour d'horizon of what it does, I look at the UN's flow chart—the list of activities, agencies, committees and bodies—and ask myself whether the organisation has lost sight of its core business, which should be peace and security.

I have done quite a lot of international development work in the past few years and I must say that we need to make the point that investment, whether public or private, is very hard to secure where there is conflict, but where there is an absence of conflict, both public and private investment comes pouring in and increases living standards.

The United Nations has a vital role to play in dealing with conflict and in promoting peace and security, yet it is also involved in many other activities. There is the United Nations University, the United Nations Office for Project Services, the United Nations human settlements programme, the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and so on. There are many UN agencies and committees, all of which I am sure are very worthy and doing important work, but as we know from other organisations, we can sometimes get bogged down and distracted if we lose sight of core business.

I am sorry that the Government's Command Paper did not ask what the core business of the UN is and how it can better focus on it: indeed, how it can do less better. None the less, we look forward to the high level panel report, which will be produced in December. We have great respect for Lord Hannay, our representative on the panel, and we are delighted that the Minister agrees that we should have a full debate on the report when it is in our hands, perhaps early next year.

We also recognise that conflict resolution and prevention and the promotion of global stability raise very difficult questions of sovereignty and practicality. On page 62 of the Command Paper, the Government suggest that the UN needs to be clearer about when it should intervene. In particular, they say:

"The Security Council should consider drawing up guidelines for international debate, on the instances of state failure and other threats in which the Security Council should consider authorising military interventions."

It is fundamental that we have a debate on when the Security Council should authorise intervention and how that intervention should take place. Should the UN be the body to intervene? Some people believe the UN to be an independent, third-party organisation with a standing army of its own that is ready to zoom into any conflict situation. Of course that is not the case. As we have seen in most of the major conflicts in recent years, if the Americans and Brits do not do it, it does not get done. How we should intervene and when we should intervene are vital questions, and we support the Government in calling for a debate on them. Issues of sovereignty and international law are not easy to consider.

The next thing that needs to be thrashed out is how the Security Council in particular should take decisions and who should serve on it. That is a very important part of the current debate and the Government refer to it on page 71. They do not exactly stick out their neck, but say that they believe in the expansion of the Security Council. I think that we all believe in that, but they do not suggest how that should be done. Perhaps we are a little braver, but we certainly see—[Interruption.] They do not say that in the small print of the Command Paper, but they may have said it elsewhere.

We certainly support countries such as India and Brazil and either South Africa or Egypt coming on board as permanent members of the Security Council, particularly if it is understood that they are representing their region or sub-region, which is why they are joining that important group of people. The composition of the Security Council needs to reflect modern and approaching realities of where global power lies.

It is worth repeating the point that I made last year in a similar debate that the UN cannot work without the full engagement of the world's only superpower. If the United States of America is not fully engaged in the UN, the UN is simply a talking shop, and a pretty toothless one. It is therefore vital that the US is engaged in the reform process and signs up to whatever comes out of it. The United Kingdom has a very real role to play in persuading our American friends that it is critical that they form part of the multilateral response to what is going on in the world and that they do not simply seek to go it alone.

It would also be very welcome if we could see an end to the pork-barrel politics that the General Assembly often reflects. It would be very good indeed if members could be encouraged to see the bigger picture of global peace and security, hard though that is, rather than seeing simply what they can take back to their own countries and regions.

Is not a real, glaring example of what my hon. Friend says staring us in the face? If the UN could play a bigger role in providing a broader peacekeeping force in Iraq, that force would be much more broadly recognised and welcomed by the Iraqi people than the present force, whose members tend to be regarded as occupiers, not peacekeepers.

My hon. Friend is quite right and we are all aware of the genesis of that situation. The lesson that we must learn is that such unilateral and bilateral interventions are much less good than multilateral interventions supported by the entire Security Council, followed by reconstruction and peacekeeping on a UN, not a unilateral basis. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

As we all know, the Government have suddenly become very keen on gambling. It might therefore be worth making a small wager about whether the radical reform that we want to see at the UN is likely to take place on a greater or lesser time scale than the radical reform of the House of Lords. Given the Government's sudden enthusiasm for gambling, that is perhaps worth a small wager. Both are long-term projects and we wish the Government well in reforming the United Nations.

Page 59 of the Command Paper states:

"Examples of the threats or warning signs that the UN should be focusing on might include . . . overthrow of democracy".

That is an interesting point, given that many UN members are not democratic countries themselves. Have the Government thought about including some kind of threshold as a way of incentivising the steady march towards democratic values? I mean not the Westminster-style of democracy, but the rule of law, freedom of speech, human rights and some kind of representative Government. Would it be appropriate for nations to have to cross a threshold before being allowed into certain global corridors of power? Would that not incentivise them to pursue the important process of becoming more democratic? I recognise that there is a slight problem with that way of thinking as regards China, but it would still be in the Government's interests to ensure that even the UN's structures incentivised its members to become ever more democratic.

I want to focus for two or three minutes on the important issue of the oil-for-food scam. It is strange, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, that it is not worth a single line in the Government's Command Paper, given that the issue has been one of the greatest setbacks to the UN's credibility recently. It has been revealed in figures supplied by the Iraqi Interim Government that up to $60 billion may have been affected by corruption and removed from the oil-for-food programme before finding its way into the wrong pockets, including $10 billion that may have gone to Saddam Hussein and his entourage. The Security Council was being paid £3 billion to administer the programme—it was being controlled by the United Nations—yet that vast sum went missing.

We need a fully parliamentary debate on the issue for two reasons. First, it is crucial to the UN's credibility that lessons are learned and that such corruption does not happen again. Secondly, we now know that there is a real link between the funds that went missing and the weapons being used against British troops serving in Iraq. As the Foreign Secretary is probably aware, the Secretary of State for Defence said last week:

"There is no doubt that some people who are continuing to fight are fighting for the restoration not of Saddam's regime in particular, but of the privileges and money that they enjoyed as a result of the corruption that existed during his time in office. There is no doubt that many of those people benefited significantly and are using some of those funds to buy weapons to kill not only members of the coalition, but Iraqis."—[Official Report, 18 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 642.]

Oil-for-food money—taxpayers' money—that went missing is now being used in the battle against our own troops.

I have four questions for the Minister to answer either this afternoon or in writing. On 24 March 2000, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our excellent UN ambassador, reported to the Security Council serious concerns about corruption. What action did the Foreign Office take when he blew the whistle four years ago? Secondly, senior figures in France and Russia have now been implicated in the scandal. What is the Foreign Office assessment of the impact that that had on the workings of the Security Council up to and including the crucial vote on UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq?

Thirdly, given that the Volcker inquiry has suggested that it will take more than three years to investigate, can we afford to wait that long? Should we not have an inquiry right now to investigate the British angle of the scandal? We do not yet know whether anyone domiciled in Great Britain is implicated, and Kofi Annan will have retired by the time the Volcker inquiry reports.

Fourthly, given the statement by the Defence Secretary, why have the Government refused to raise the issue directly with Kofi Annan? I will not read out the written answer received by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who has been diligent on the issue, but it is clear that at a recent meeting on 19 October the Foreign Secretary did not raise the issue. I cannot understand that, because it is a major issue with British implications. We are not accusing the Government of any wrongdoing whatsoever, but this has happened on their watch and I would urge them to move with more vigour in trying to get to the bottom of it and trying to find out what has gone wrong and why.

I could say many other things about the UN, but I want to give other hon. Members a chance to have their tuppenny worth. We all want to see a strong and effective UN that is a medium with which and through which all the world's nations are content to work, a force for global security and peace, and a voice for the powerless. That will take radical reform. We welcome the process that has started, but suspect that it will not go far or fast enough.

Next year, as the Minister has said, is a crucial one. The United Kingdom, with its chairmanship of various organisations, will be in a unique position to influence the change process for the better. We call on the Government to be more radical in their preparations and to seize this unique opportunity.

I, too, echo the comments made by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and welcome this important debate. I pay tribute to the Minister for being here in his current condition, which looks very painful. He has been a champion of the need for the House to debate these issues. Last year, we enjoyed not just one debate, but two, I recall, with the second in the main Chamber. In an outbreak of cross-party consensus, I join the calls for us to reinstate the debate in the main Chamber at a time when there is not other important business going on. Perhaps this important subject would then enjoy greater attention.

The scope and importance of the United Nations is clearly set out in the valuable document produced by the Government, Cm 6325 "The United Kingdom in the United Nations". It acknowledges that awareness of the United Nations in the United Kingdom is lower than it ought to be. In recognising that problem with the British debate, the paper has gone a long way to providing a useful summary of some of the key issues that face the UN and the UK's relationship with it.

The scope of the UN's activities goes way beyond the most obvious in security, which we tend to dwell on in this House. A quick glance at the economic and social issues section of the Command Paper will make that perfectly clear. Whether it is the United Nations Development Programme, UNESCO, UNIFEM, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, UNICEF or the Conference on Trade and Development, there is a massive list of agencies and bodies.

The hon. Member for South-West Devon seemed to suggest an organisation that was out of control and had grown like Topsy. A more charitable interpretation, which I would like to give, is that it reflects the sheer width and depth of the issues facing the United Nations and our attempts to combat them. There is a breathtaking—even bewildering—span of activities, and we are right to pause and reflect on what it means and what it tells us about the complexities of the world and the challenges facing countries trying to make sense of it all.

Security remains the abiding concern of individuals and Governments across the world. We live in an era where we are more conscious of failed and failing states, the growing and real threats of international terrorism and the real worries about transnational crime. Those are all closely related to the issues of global poverty and humanitarian crises, which are endemic in certain parts of the world, such as Africa. Indeed, there is an all too depressingly familiar vicious circle, where poverty creates instability, which leads to conflict, which deepens the poverty. And so it goes on. The United Nations must be able to tackle each of these priorities and to do so it must be reformed.

When we frame our debate on the reform of the UN we must be quite careful. The hon. Member for South-West Devon was careful in how he assessed this. We sometimes tend to treat the UN as if it were an independent, fully functioning organisation to which we have subcontracted many of our international concerns. The reality is that it is very dependent on the member states who make up its membership. Without the political will of those member states neither can the UN act nor can we hope to see it reformed. The United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has recognised the reality of the fast changing world and the need for the UN to adapt its responses and capabilities to suit the new world order.

The setting out of objectives in the millennium declaration with an explicit listing of the development goals was an important advance. So too was the world summit on sustainable development, which took place in Johannesburg in 2002. But it has been the recognition of the security costs of the failure to tackle those issues that has understandably dominated international debate in recent times: 9/11, the war in Iraq and the proliferation of nuclear capabilities and weapons have divided the world, but at the same time they have highlighted the need for a new consensus on the nature of the threats and how we should deal with them.

Kofi Annan set out his concerns on these issues a year ago to the General Assembly of the United Nations and set up the high level panel, which has been referred to by both the Minister and the Conservative spokesman. When he was in London last week he emphasised the importance of its work and looked forward to its report in December. The Command Paper has been extremely useful in setting out the United Kingdom Government's position and their aspirations for the high level panel report. We would broadly support the objectives that are set out there.

We must undoubtedly improve the performance of the United Nations in the areas of conflict prevention and peace building. We have to take decisive action against terrorism and the counter terrorism committee has been an important step in that regard. As the issues in India, Pakistan and, most pressingly at present, in Iran confirm, we have to strengthen our understanding of nuclear proliferation and the measures that we can take to counter it. I hope that the Minister will also be able to reflect on the worrying reports in the last few weeks in Iraq about the loss of some of the technology that might have a nuclear input.

Equally, returning to the Government's priorities for the high level panel, we cannot ignore the linkages between poverty and conflict and the close relationship they have with environmental degradation. Perhaps the most important issue that the Government highlight, which we also recognise as crucial, is item d) on page 4 of the Command Paper. It relates to

"the circumstances in which military action should be authorised to prevent a threat from materialising by acting at an early stage, and to deal with overwhelming humanitarian catastrophes".

That is the nub of the huge debate that we have had here in the United Kingdom in the past few years, but also internationally. We may have our differences of opinion about how we got into conflicts, not least in Iraq, but the lessons to be learned from Iraq, Rwanda and Kosovo must tell us that we all have a collective responsibility to re-examine this issue. Like the hon. Member for South-West Devon, I hope that when the panel publishes its reports, we will again have the opportunity to debate the reform of the UN—not least because of this issue.

Sorting out what the UN should be focused on and what it should legitimately sanction is a key priority, but ensuring that it has the capability to act is equally important. The political legitimacy of the organisation is crucial; the expansion of the permanent membership will be a test of that. There is probably reasonable cross-party consensus on that. For our part, we support the so-called G4 of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan in their efforts to obtain permanent membership. Indeed, we would probably go further and agree with the hon. Member for South-West Devon that a significant African country—be it Egypt or South Africa—should be included as well. We add the caveat that we should ensure that all such candidates comply with any obligations they have under existing UN Security Council resolutions.

In their papers, the Government set out some other key aspects of the Security Council that we support, such as the need for greater transparency in the way in which it operates, the ability to open sessions to other members of the UN so that they can comment on and participate in key debates on issues facing the world and, perhaps most importantly when we consider what is happening at the moment, the need to reform our sanctions regimes. We must ensure that both an effective body of sanctions and a credible mechanism for ensuring that they are enforced are available to us. We also welcome the thrust of the reform proposals contained in the paper to do with peacekeeping, the General Assembly, the secretariat and the multitude of UN development funds and programmes, not least as we build up to the 2005 summit, at which the progress made on the 2000 millennium declaration will be considered.

The UK's role in the UN, which has been commented on today and to which I paid tribute in last year's debates, is significant. We are reminded once again in the Command Paper of the sheer size of the UK budgetary contribution—at £623 million, it is not an insignificant amount. We also have consistently strong diplomatic representation at the UN. In the next year, the UK will have a pivotal role in the G8 and EU presidencies. We look forward to the Government maximising their contribution to the debates when we hold those important positions.

At the outset, I suggested that there is a reasonable degree of consensus about the UN, although we have our differences about specific issues, over which we have had confrontations from time to time. Whatever those disagreements, we must all unite in recognising the need for an effective multilateral organisation that is able to tackle global problems and their underlying causes, not least when our security is at stake. The UN faces unprecedented challenges and a need for reform, but it is a powerful and invaluable organisation, which we continue to support wholeheartedly.

I, too, welcome the fact that the Government arranged this debate, and welcome the publication of the second report on "The United Kingdom in the United Nations". At a time when many decry the work of the UN, the document is a testament to its valuable work, both directly and through its agencies, in helping to tackle some of the problems of the poorest in the world and of victims of war and terror; indeed, they are often the same people.

The document also reminds us of the important work done by many UN agencies in other fields of activity that do not always attract so much media coverage—everything from bodies essential to the world economy and communications, such as the International Maritime Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation and others, such as UNESCO. I make special mention of UNESCO, not least because about 10 per cent. of my constituency is situated in one of its world heritage sites; and the city of Edinburgh has just been nominated as UNESCO's first international city of literature.

That is an indication of the breadth of interest of the United Nations and its agencies. I have no difficulty with the proposition that, with so many interests and concerns bringing so many countries together, a range of international agencies should be working in such ways. It is useful to have positive examples of successful international co-operation on record. I welcome the Government's robust recommitment to the UN, and the general all-party support for the UN that has been expressed this afternoon.

The key issue in our debate and in the more general debate outside is the recognition that, for all the UN's achievements, the international community has failed to tackle some of the most important issues of our day. Those hon. Gentlemen who have spoken referred to some of those failures. That is why it is right to consider how and to what extent the UN can be changed so as to allow it to become a more effective mechanism, whereby the international community can respond to the pressing challenges of the day.

I mentioned the failures of the international community; I say the international community rather than the UN, because the UN is the voice of the international community. However, those failures are an argument for strengthening the UN's ability to tackle such problems; they are not an argument for weakening the UN. It is essential that, in their international actions, Governments ensure that what they do strengthen the UN rather than contributes to its weakening.

I welcome the setting up of the high level panel by the Secretary-General, and the contribution that the Government made to that panel, which is set out in the annexe to the paper. Getting a consensus—a consensus not only on the lowest common denominator but a consensus for real change—is probably one of the most important objectives in international diplomacy today. I, too, hope that at an appropriate time, we have the opportunity to discuss those recommendations in a major debate on the Floor of the House.

I welcome the emphasis in the Government's contribution to the high level panel, but if we are to move to a UN that

"deals with threats to international peace and security",

a move to what effectively is a more interventionist UN, the emphasis has to be on developing a proactive and preventive response to stop threats turning into actual attacks or conflicts. I, too, strongly endorse the proposals in the Government's paper for the UN to have a strengthened analytical capacity to identify threats and to make possible responses to threats at an early stage.

I welcome also the proposals to improve UN peacekeeping operations. I would be particularly interested, either today or later, in hearing from the Minister how we could strengthen the civilian peacekeeping capacity of the UN and, indeed, of the UK, as well as the military peacekeeping capacity. It is essential also to strengthen the multilateral proliferation regimes. Again, the Government refer to the verification regime for the biological and toxin weapons convention and the strengthening of the safeguards division of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I would welcome an update.

I accept that a more proactive response to some of the challenges that face the world community may require military intervention, and that in some cases, if military action had been taken at an earlier stage, some of the problems that face us now might not have arisen. Equally, there are many examples where crises in the international community could have been prevented or conflicts or wars averted, if a more proactive peacekeeping, developmental or diplomatic approach had been adopted earlier. It is therefore right for the Government to emphasise in their paper that military action should be the last rather than the first resort.

I would go further than that and strongly argue that any military action should be undertaken only with the clear endorsement of the international community, which is expressed normally through the UN or a regional arrangement, such as the African Union, which is referred to in the paper.

The events in Iraq in recent years are obviously the backdrop to this debate. Without going into that debate now, I do not think that anyone would dispute that our position in Iraq could well have been different and better if a degree of consensus on the right course of action could have been achieved in the UN at an earlier stage. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the argument that is put forward in some quarters that we should legitimise a more general right for states to take action to intervene militarily in other countries, unless that action either has the clear endorsement of, preferably, the UN or enjoys a clear international or regional consensus. Without such endorsement, I am worried that we will legitimise the right of, bluntly, big powers to interfere in the internal affairs of other powers, not for genuine human rights reasons, but because that suits their national interests.

When I refer to big powers, I do not use that as a code for any particular big powers, such as the USA, or smaller, more medium-sized powers, such as the UK. By big powers I mean any state that is in a position of military superiority to its neighbours. There are many small powers in the world that are nevertheless substantial military players in their own areas. We must be very careful indeed about endorsing the development of legitimising a general right of states to intervene in other countries in that way. The example of Iraq has surely shown that easy assumptions about remodelling the world with quick, surgical military action can be proved wrong in reality.

In saying that, I certainly do not argue that the world should stand idly by in the face of humanitarian crises or the flouting of the international community's will by repressive regimes or failed states. However, any action must surely have clear foundations in internationally accepted legal principles, in a clear and internationally endorsed legal order that reflects the clear consensus of the international community.

Above all, the emphasis must be on conflict prevention, tackling the underlying factors that lead to international tension and on ensuring that the UN and Governments consistently support human rights and democracy throughout the world. What that means in practical terms is that the Government should continue their efforts to strengthen the UN and allow it and its agencies to work more effectively. The programme for change that the Government set out in their annexe to the paper has my general support. We also need to press for reforms within the UN institutions, to ensure that the promotion of human rights is taken more seriously in those agencies. We certainly cannot accept, for example, the scandal of countries with abysmal human rights records taking a leading role in the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Reforming the UN also means that the UK should ensure that, as part of our efforts to combat terrorism, we do not find ourselves getting too close to regimes with questionable human rights records. We all know that a questionable human rights record almost guarantees that at some stage the country in question will become the focus of either internal or external conflict and, in some cases, a recruiting ground for further terrorism. In general terms, the agenda that the Government have set out in their document deserves to be supported and to be debated both in the Chamber and more generally in the country.

The changes will require considerable effort at international level. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is actively involved in such efforts in many forums. I am glad that he spoke of the importance of pursuing the agenda through the European Union, because we have significant influence as a state there, and it is perhaps appropriate in a week when the Heads of Government are signing the constitutional treaty to mention the importance of the EU developing a stronger and more coherent policy on human rights. It is to be hoped that then the EU common position on human rights in international forums, such as the United Nations, would be stronger.

Some might regard it as strange to refer to an EU role in this context on the day after the EU failed to agree on the membership of the European Commission for the next five years. However, in my view the events in Brussels of the past few days have emphasised how an increasing common concern is felt throughout Europe on issues such as equality and human rights. There is an opportunity for the UK, in the second half of next year, to build on that common concern to ensure that Europe uses its considerable collective influence to work for the reforms that we all agree are necessary in the UN and the international system.

The Government have presented a generally excellent report today and it deserves much wider publicity throughout the country. I shall try to ensure that it receives that in my area and that it contributes to the debate about the future of the UN. That debate is not only for parliamentarians but is one in which the entire country should be involved.

I am pleased to be here in the Chamber after an absence of several months, with you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and following the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). The contributions this afternoon have been well informed, and this is a high-profile debate. I declare the fact that I was part of an all-party group that visited the United Nations last November.

This debate on the United Kingdom in the United Nations has for its background the Government's Command Paper Cm 6325, from which I have already quoted. It is an informative document. It is comprehensive, but it is very bland and I wish that it had a little more spice and a little more idea of the action that the British Government will take to support and enhance the actions of the United Nations. We can all agree, in this Chamber and much more widely, that we want a properly functioning United Nations—indeed, one that functions better than at present.

The United Kingdom has a pivotal role to play in bringing that about. Not only, as we have heard today, is it one of the largest donors, but it has, next year, the presidency of the European Union and the G8. It is also probably the closest ally of the United States, where we have considerable influence—and where we shall no doubt continue to have such influence after the election next week.

The report is interesting in that it shows what a broad field the United Nations gets involved in—everything from the International Court of Justice, to forests and the environment, to refugees and human rights. Those are all very laudable, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, perhaps if the United Nations did a little less, but did it better, we should be better off.

I want to focus on a few matters. As a former chairman of the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health, I welcome the UN's work in the United Nations Population Fund and the International Conference on Population and Development—particularly the goals that were set at Cairo. I note from the report that 2004 is the ICPD's 10th anniversary year. The report states, on page 37:

"At its anniversary session this year the CPD adopted a resolution reaffirming the importance of the ICPD and implementation of the Programme of Action."

I have heard that somewhere before, fairly close to where Opposition Members are sitting. Nevertheless, "action" is a good word, and I welcome the work that the UN is doing on promoting sustainable populations and reproductive health.

Another page that I turned to in the report relates to the UN commission on narcotic drugs. Again, the document is very bland. The opening statement, at paragraph 250, says:

"The Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) is the central UN policy-making body dealing with drug-related matters. It analyses the world drug situation, develops proposals to strengthen the international drug control system and is the custodian of the three UN conventions that form the basis of national and international drug control."

What a pity, as the United Kingdom has been playing a major role in trying to reduce the amount of heroin coming out of Afghanistan, that since that time, production and the amount of heroin coming to the UK have rocketed to such an extent that the price on the streets has dropped so that it is only a very little more expensive than cigarettes. That is having a very unfortunate effect on young people in this country. I hope that the Minister will say something about what we are doing to address that problem. The Royal Navy is doing an excellent job picking up ships in the Mediterranean, but that is only part of the problem. The moment that we close off one route, the drug barons, who make huge profits from drugs, find another.

Let me move on to a different subject altogether: international law and how it can be upheld through the UN. In his Sedgefield address of 5 March, the Prime Minister, perhaps rightly, raised doubts about the ability to address vast humanitarian problems around the world through the current international legal framework. He said:

"It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe . . . This may be the law, but should it be?"

The need to ensure that that framework is successfully amended is pressing, because only under the rule of law can a Government act legitimately, either at home or abroad. I do not think that I have ever agreed with anything that the Prime Minister has said as much as I did with those statements.

Her Majesty's loyal Opposition have consistently upheld, throughout their existence, the rule of law. We were therefore very concerned about the basis on which we went into Iraq. I do not want to go over that particularly, but on 13 March 2003 I questioned the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I said:

"The Leader of the House said this morning, in very profound terms, that the Prime Minister would not go to war unless he believed that he had proper legal cover."

The then Leader of the House replied:

"It follows logically from what I said that the Prime Minister is satisfied that he has adequate legal authority in international law for any action that may be taken . . . I repeat that the Prime Minister will take no action that he believes to be inconsistent with international law."—[Official Report, 13 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 441.]

I wonder whether the Government would stand by that statement now.

Irrespective of whether the Government were right and whether they had legal cover to go into Iraq, we are where we are; there is not much point rehearsing that argument. The argument that we need to rehearse—I made this point strongly in my speech last week in the debate on defence in the world—concerns the need to concentrate on a rehabilitation and reconstruction plan for Iraq. The whole thing seems to be going perilously slowly. The Government need to put much more effort into that. As I said last week, unless we get right the basic things, such as electricity, water, sewerage and adequate housing, schools and health—which we all take for granted in this modern civilised country of ours—the Iraqi people will not feel safe or that they want a stable democracy.

I therefore want to refer to the arms-for-food programme, whereby so much money has been embezzled. We know that Saddam Hussein had a system of discount vouchers, but unfortunately it is still going on in the UN. We have heard all the stories about UN officials being involved, so my intervention on the Minister was pertinent. The investigation by Kofi Annan should be made public, so that we can all see clearly and openly what exactly the UN has been up to.

As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon, I believe that establishing a more broadly based peacekeeping force in Iraq through the United Nations is essential. I am not sure whether we can achieve democratic elections in Iraq in February, but whether we can or cannot, there is no doubt that it will still be necessary to have substantial peacekeeping forces of some sort in Iraq. It would be much better if we had more broadly based forces, from Asian countries and with a more Muslim slant, so that the people of Iraq saw them as more acceptable. As I said earlier, they would be seen as genuine peacekeepers, rather than, as some sections of the Iraqi people unfortunately view us now, as occupiers because we are not of their beliefs, religion and culture.

I raised earlier another problem in that region, which is that of Iran. There is no doubt that until we get a stable situation with Iran, we will find it very difficult to achieve a stable situation in Iraq. The dictum always used to be that if Iraq and Iran had roughly equal strength of force, that would keep the peace. The problem is that, as we know, Iran is building up its air force and army. Unfortunately, it also looks as if it is moving towards a nuclear capability.

I stress to the Minister—I hope that the Government will take this seriously—that through the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is a UN agency, we must insist on having full completion of Iran's declarations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As I said in a speech last week, if it does not do that, we must build a broad diplomatic effort involving Russia, China, our major European allies France and Germany, and the United States to put increasing pressure on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon was a little unkind about the UN in saying that he could not think of much good that it had done. I think that that is what he said—I hope that I am not misquoting him—and I somewhat disagree with him. One thing that it has done, which might be connected with military action in Iraq, involves the sanctions on Libya, a country which has been one of the great success stories. Smaller conflicts, such as in Sierra Leone and Liberia, have also been success stories for the UN.

The problem is that the UN relies heavily on the good will of its members. We are a fully participating member, and we try to help wherever we can, perhaps to the detriment of some of our military forces, which feel overstretched at the moment. However, that is a different subject for a different day. The problem is that the UN can act effectively as a peacekeeping force only when it has assets or access to assets under its close control. That involves funding, and although I do not want to criticise the United States, because it is a close ally, I believe that it is not quite pulling its weight in funding the UN. The US is getting better at paying its dues, but there is still a $194 million shortfall in its payments to the UN as of May 2004. Indeed, the UN website says:

"Along with several other factors, this situation has created a possibility that the United States may accrue new arrears to the United Nations and several of its specialized agencies."

As I said last week, I hope that the British Prime Minister will be the first to be phoned by the US President, whoever he is, after the election. I hope that the Prime Minister will first congratulate him, but secondly say that we should have a new middle east peace initiative. We have not talked much about the middle east, but I will move on to that. I hope that the third thing that the Prime Minister and the next President do is say that they want a properly functioning United Nations and that they must fund it properly.

Today's news from the middle east that Yasser Arafat is not well is disturbing. I hope that he makes a quick recovery but that, whatever happens—even if he is not able to continue to lead the Palestine Liberation Organisation—neither side will use this as an opportunity to increase its military activity. We need a wider middle east settlement, because the lack of such a settlement is one of the things that gives the terrorists the excuse to carry out their vile activities—incidentally, that is also the situation in Iraq.

We would go a long way towards solving the world's terrorist problems if we had a lasting, viable peace settlement in the middle east. That will involve the Palestinians having a viable state—the Israelis must accept that. Having said that, I warmly welcome Prime Minister Sharon's initiative in leaving the Gaza strip, and I hope that we will now make real progress. However, that will require the involvement of the UK Government, their EU partners, and particularly the United States and other allies such as the Chinese and the Russians. We tend to forget those last two allies, but they are very important in terms of establishing a lasting world peace.

I have just come back from China. It is interesting that the Chinese are becoming much more prepared to engage in world diplomatic efforts, as we have seen in the past few weeks over North Korea. At present, therefore, the UK Government have an opportunity—a window—to make great diplomatic efforts with the Chinese, who are very friendly towards the British. That would do us a power of good in terms of diplomacy but also in terms of the increasing trade that we could do in China. China has increased its GDP by 10 times in the past 10 years, but it still has huge problems. It has 600 million citizens doing quite well, but 700 million citizens who are virtually on the poverty line, so there is a lot of work to be done there.

This has been an interesting debate. The Government are right to hold an annual debate. I hope that next year the debate will be held in the House, and that we will all have more time to develop some of the themes at greater length, because they are incredibly important. I wish the Government well with their efforts with the United Nations. I hope that when we return to the debate next year, they will be able to tell us of the substantial progress that they have made, assuming that they—rather than we—win the election.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing the annual debate in the week that United Nations day occurs.

Hon. Members have made valuable contributions to a wide-ranging debate. I was therefore somewhat hesitant to draw attention to one specific corner of the world. However, I am emboldened to do so by the fact that, last week, a United Nations officer again drew to the attention of the Security Council the world's largest neglected crisis—the crisis in northern Uganda. That area has not yet been spoken about in today's debate, nor is it an area that is hitting the headlines at present. Yet, after Sudan, which is now—thankfully—receiving worldwide attention, the conflict in northern Uganda remains the most tragic in the world.

The officer who brought it to the Security Council's attention was Jan Egeland, who is the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and the UN's emergency relief co-ordinator. I draw attention to the problem in order to highlight a situation about which we would like the UN to pass a resolution, but in which both the UN and the British Government feel unable to intervene directly. That is not to detract from the aid and support that this Government and many others have given to northern Uganda. However, as Jan Egeland said:

"Where else in the world have there been 20,000 kidnapped children? Where else in the world have 90 per cent. of the population in large districts been displaced? Where else in the world do children make up 80 per cent. of the terrorist insurgency movement?"

It is an appalling situation; it happens in one area of a country that is a full member of the United Nations, and to which we have given credit in respect of the development of heavily indebted poor countries and other matters—for example, Uganda's tackling of HIV/AIDS.

Yet the 18-year rebellion of the Lord's Resistance Army against the Government has, as I said, forced 1.6 million Ugandans, half of them children, into squalid, overcrowded camps in order to escape the attacks and the killings. That number includes 40,000 night commuters—children who sleep under verandas, in schools, in hospital courtyards and in bus parking places, so as to evade the snare of the LRA.

It is heartrending that children are the perpetrators and the victims in that war; they are caught in the snare set by the LRA. It is a humanitarian tragedy. Only the United Nations can take action, but it has failed to bring about a solution. Kofi Annan led a seminar in the United Nations last year on child soldiers; it is an issue that we all think of as horrific when it is brought to our attention, yet year after year—18 years now—there is no solution to this absolute tragedy.

I am emboldened to bring the issue to the attention of the Chamber today in the context of a debate on the United Nations, to put it in the context of all we have said and to use it to highlight the urgent need for the reform of the United Nations for encouraging work on conflict resolution—if only action had been taken earlier—and especially for the restoration of peace.

In briefing the Security Council last week, Jan Egeland said that there were now some positive signals that the Ugandan Government were giving the situation a higher priority, and that there were more talks going on. He was convinced, as is everybody who has considered the situation, that there is no military solution in northern Uganda. The only solution is through reconciliation, and through the efforts of the Minister and those of others, especially in the Department for International Development. Work is going on in that respect. I trust that in his further contact with the United Nations, the Minister will highlight the issue again.

I welcome the valuable report, which I hope will be read more widely than just by the hon. Members present in the debate. I hope, too, that the UK will make a valuable contribution in the high-level panel, and that when we have this debate next year, there will have been real progress in some of the many areas that hon. Members have highlighted.

With the leave of the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to some of the points that were made in the debate.

The debate has been very well informed and constructive, as were the debates last year. There is a strong cross-party consensus on this critical area of international policy. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), pointed to the UN successes, for example in Afghanistan and Haiti, and rightly stated where the UN has failed in the past—Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda, Israel and Palestine, and Zimbabwe. In these debates, we sometimes criticise the UN as though it were a freestanding institution, but the United Nations is simply as good as the sum of its parts. The international community and individual nation states determine whether there is an effective international organisation.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asked what the United Nations is for.More than anything, the UN's role is to deliver peace, security and greater equality around the world, which is where the millennium development goals are so critically important. If we in the advanced developed world, where the fear of security and terrorist attack is so strong, want the UN to demonstrate that it is willing to combat those issues, as part of that bargain—even if we did not want to do it for other reasons, which we do—we must tackle fundamental concerns about poverty and inequality around the world.

The hon. Gentleman rightly questioned the number of different agencies and committees in the UN structure. At the very least, that point underlines the need for better co-ordination and prioritisation. One case that highlights the need for prioritisation is the decision by the Security Council to end what was effectively the Hansard reporting of every UN Committee. That programme is 27 years behind in its reporting and costs $2 million but, when the Security Council's proposal got to the General Assembly, it was blocked. Unless we are prepared collectively and internationally to take such decisions and stop that degree of unjustifiable activity so that money can be better spent, we will continue to struggle.

A number of hon. Members referred to the debate on the circumstances that justify military intervention. That is one of the most important debates that we must have.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to our views on the expansion of the Security Council. I am sure that he missed it inadvertently, but our views are set out in detail on page 4. For some time we have been in favour of having five additional permanent members. Germany and Japan should be included because of the substantial contribution that they already make to the UN structure, and India and Brazil should represent their particular parts of the world. A country from Africa should also be included, but it is not yet clear which country is in a pre-eminent position. We are also in favour of having five additional non-permanent members.

Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, there has been talk of having additional members of the Security Council, and I strongly support that. When does the Minister realistically think that that might be a prospect for some of the countries that he has just mentioned?

Somebody referred earlier to whether one was prepared to take a bet on that matter. It is enormously difficult to create a consensus for the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council. There is a degree of cross-party consensus about which countries should be additional permanent members. However, for every one that is identified, another country in that region believes that it is equally validly justified in seeking a permanent seat. That is part of the problem.

It will be interesting to see what the high level panel comes forward with and whether we can establish a consensus and move forward on the issue. I have no doubt that having the same Security Council structure that we inherited from the outcome of the second world war almost 60 years ago is not credible or justifiable. We need to move forward, but I do not underestimate the difficulty of that.

The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) intervened on the hon. Member for South-West Devon and said that what we needed in Iraq was a UN force that would not be seen as an occupying force. There are two issues in that statement. First, I do not think that the vast majority of Iraqis view our troops, which come from 30 different nations, as an occupying force. However, that minority of insurgents and terrorists who regard them as an occupying force would take that view whatever the composition of the force. At the beginning of the debate, I referred to the attack on the United Nations last year. The idea that we would not face difficulty from the insurgents if we simply had a UN force is not borne out by the facts.

The hon. Member for South-West Devon talked about the possibility of thresholds for democracy and commitment to human rights values. That issue has been debated in the past, particularly with regard to the Commission on Human Rights. It is a good idea in principle, but turkeys tend not to vote for an early Christmas. The unanimity needed to agree that threshold would be very difficult to achieve, because the countries that would be needed to vote for it would be the ones that would be excluded on the basis of the threshold from certain decision-making forums.

There has been much comment on the oil-for-food programme. It is important that I set out in some detail exactly where we are on that. On 9 August, the Independent Inquiry Committee published an interim report that provides information on the oil-for-food programme and the status of the inquiry, including its terms of reference and staffing details. The interim report described only the initiation and early progress of the inquiry, and reached no substantive conclusions on the allegations of corruption.

Subsequently, on 21 October 2004, the Independent Inquiry Committee published a technical briefing document outlining the revenue generated and spent through the oil-for-food programme. The document also listed all those companies that participated in the programme, but emphasised that inclusion in the list did not in itself constitute an implication of illicit, unethical or corrupt behaviour.

We await subsequent reports from the Independent Inquiry Committee in 2005—the time scale that we have been given—which are expected to address the role of UN staff and contractors in the management of the programme, and the allegations of corruption surrounding certain UN personnel and entities that engaged in business with Iraq under the programme.

Several UK companies were involved in buying oil from Iraq and delivering goods to Iraq under the programme. Several foreign companies based in the UK were also involved. One UK company that had contracts under the programme declared in a statement to the London stock exchange on 22 July 2004 that prices payable on certain contracts were uplifted by an aggregate of £4.2 million. The company could not rule out the possibility that sums may have been returned to Iraq. At this time, however, we have no evidence of wrongdoing by any UK companies. It is important that we allow these investigations to proceed and that we co-operate with them, which we are quite properly doing.

The hon. Member for South-West Devon also asked me four questions on the oil-for-food programme, the first of which relates to the concerns expressed in 2000 by our former ambassador to the UN, Jeremy Greenstock, and what was done as a result. We proposed and gained agreement in the Security Council on a new pricing mechanism that had prevented Saddam Hussein from under-charging for oil and diverting profits. That mechanism was put in place. We also proposed other measures, such as preventing charging of illegal port fees, but could not secure agreement in the Security Council.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked if the attitude of Russia and France in the Security Council was affected by benefiting from the allegations of corruption surrounding the oil-for-food programme. The important point to make is that there are allegations that Russian and French companies benefited, but the investigation has not yet completed its work. There is no evidence of a link to those countries' positions in the Security Council.

The Volcker report will take three years. The hon. Gentleman asked me if we could wait before investigating these matters ourselves. First, the Volcker team plans to report in early 2005 on some aspects such as the role of UN contractors and the overall UN management of the programme. Any information on UK individuals or companies has been passed to the relevant authorities. We do not yet have enough information to mount any prosecutions, but we will, of course, keep this matter under active review.

I was asked why the Foreign Secretary did not discuss the corruption allegations surrounding the oil-for-food programme with the Secretary General when he visited London recently. It is important to be clear that Kofi Annan has set up an independent inquiry in which, quite properly, he has no role. There were therefore no specific points to make about the oil-for-food programme to the Secretary General. Given that it is an independent inquiry, that is the right way to deal with the issue.

The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) made several points. He highlighted the important link between poverty and conflict. That is a very telling point, to which we need consistently to return. He also raised the issue of the loss of Iraqi weapons technology. We are aware of those reports, and they are being investigated and will be discussed in the Security Council next month.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) raised a number of points. He talked about failures within the UN system and rightly identified that those are not failures of the system itself but of the whole of the international community and its failure to get agreement to act in the right circumstances. He also talked about the need for strengthened analytical capacity within the UN to ensure early intervention, whether by military or non-military means. That is an important point to make.

My hon. Friend also talked about the need for civilian capacity in early intervention. That is one of the reasons why the Foreign Office has established a post-conflict reconstruction unit. It looks specifically at the need, among other things, for civilian activities in post-conflict situations. If that model works—we believe that it can—it could be replicated on the international stage. One of the ways in which we are currently working on the civilian front is through support for civilian contributions to peacekeeping missions. We have 10 civil police officers in Sierra Leone and 105 in Kosovo. That is just two examples. We also provide training support.

The hon. Member for Cotswold raised several points. He stressed how there is such a broad range of activities within the UN system. That is an important point, to which several hon. Members referred. We must recognise, and the UN must recognise, that it is not a world Government. That is not what it should try to do. That should therefore imbue all of us within the UN with a real responsibility to take care of the activities and functions that the UN takes up. It must not be so stretched and unco-ordinated that it cannot take effective action.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to both the UN's assessment of Afghanistan counter narcotics and our role as lead nation in trying to tackle that problem. He referred to the reports that have been published recently, as a result of the UN survey for this year, about increases in cultivation. I will be in Brussels on Thursday with Mr. Costa to give the details of that report. We have for some time been saying that we expected an increase in cultivation this year. That does not mean that our efforts or anyone else's have failed, but it does mean that this problem will take time to tackle. That is certainly the experience in any country that has successfully tackled the drugs problem in this way. It took a considerable time to turn round the situation in Pakistan and Thailand.

My reason for having a degree of confidence about Afghanistan is that the building blocks of our strategy in terms of eradication, interdiction, alternative livelihoods, police, judicial capacity and the need for high-level arrests, are all in place. We obviously must assess the degree of commitment that we give to each of those tasks but that has to be the right way forward. The real test of whether what we are doing on the drugs front in Afghanistan is working will come this time next year when all those elements have been in place for a sufficiently long period. I believe that it will work, but that will be the crunch point.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the war with Iraq. He asked whether we still stood by our legal justification for that war. I can assure him that we do. The combination of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 gave effective legal force to military action. Bluntly—this is the point that is sometimes forgotten in these debates—resolution 1441 gave Saddam and his regime a last chance to comply. That chance was not taken, which was the reason that we went to war, and for no other reason.

The hon. Gentleman referred also to his concerns about Iran. I share some of them. We have been taking a lead on the question with the French and Germans, and I reiterate that we are calling on Iran to give full, open and timely co-operation to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Bluntly, that is not happening. The IAEA board of governors met between 13 and 17 September to discuss the director general's latest report on Iran, which reviewed the steps that have been taken during the past three months.

The board adopted a resolution that established a clear decision point. Iran can meet international requests or face referral to the UN Security Council. We are working with our partners to set out in detail what Iran needs to do before the November board meeting. The subject is open for discussion and resolution in the longer term if Iran does so. We and many of our international partners seek to put concerted pressure on the Iranian Government to achieve that end.

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted China's role in international affairs at the UN. Like him, I was in China earlier this week. He was right, however, that the Chinese Government are much more prepared to engage in international affairs and to take a lead than historically has been the case. North Korea is the best example of that. We are trying to match that. We have established a comprehensive, strategic partnership, and we are constantly engaging with the Chinese on those issues.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) rightly highlighted real concerns about the situation in northern Uganda. My hon. Friend often speaks about the issue. Unfortunately, as with so many conflicts in Africa, not enough international attention is given to such problems. If the loss of life that happens in conflicts in Africa happened on the same scale in other parts of the world, media attention would be far more significant, as would international efforts to resolve them. Nevertheless, she was right to refer to the significant aid and support that the Government are making. We will continue to do so.

We have had an extensive and productive debate. I hope that we can return to these critical issues, either in Westminster Hall or on the Floor of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Five o'clock.

How many acceptable behaviour orders have been issued in each police force since their introduction. [193731]

The Home Office does not routinely collect statistics on the use or otherwise of acceptable behaviour contracts—ABCs. ABC schemes, also known as acceptable behaviour agreements, are voluntary and have been developed by a range of agencies whose role it is to prevent such behaviour. Figures released today from the National Survey on Antisocial Behaviour show that 5,383 contracts have been signed in England and Wales and 45 of these ABCs have been issued in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I understand from Westminster's return to this survey that its overall antisocial behaviour strategy has proved successful in improving community confidence.

Registered Social Landlords (ASBOs)

How many antisocial behaviour orders have been applied for by registered social landlords in each year since 2002. [193732]

The number of antisocial behaviour orders, as notified to the Home Office, where the main complainant was a registered social landlord is as follows: January to December 2003: 24; January to June 2004 (latest data available): 29.

Fly-tipping

If the Government will make fly-tipping an arrestable offence. [193733]

All offences that on first conviction can receive a prison sentence of five years or more, which includes hazardous waste fly-tipping, are already arrestable under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. DEFRA has recently consulted on a range of proposals in the fly-tipping strategy and clean neighbourhoods consultations, including ensuring the main fly-tipping offence provides a greater deterrent. Measures will be brought forward at the next legislative opportunity.

Colleagues in the Home Office have also recently consulted on proposals to make all offences arrestable, provided that they are a serious enough example. If these proposals are brought forward, there will be no need to make specific changes to waste legislation.

What steps the Government are taking to reduce the antisocial dumping of (a) hazardous and (b) other waste. [193734]

The illegal disposal of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste is a serious criminal offence. The Government are committed to ensuring that it is dealt with appropriately and are taking steps on a number of fronts. Measures to help tackle fly-tipping have been included in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which were commenced from 31 March 2004. DEFRA has also recently consulted on a range of measures in the clean neighbourhoods consultation, which will be brought forward at the next legislative opportunity.

Duration of ASBOs

What was the average duration of antisocial behaviour orders issued in each year since 1999. [193735]

Figures relating to the average duration of antisocial behaviour orders are not collected centrally. However, we collect figures on the number of ASBOs issued by duration of order. The minimum duration of an ASBO is two years but there is no maximum period. An ASBO may be made for an indefinite period. It is for the court to decide the duration depending on the age of the recipient and the severity of their antisocial behaviour.

Unlawful Pollution

What discussions the Government have had with (a) the Environment Agency, (b) local authorities and (c) police authorities regarding the policing of unlawful pollution of the environment.

The Government take a joined-up approach to the whole continuum of antisocial behaviour, from the low level environmental crime including fly-posting, graffiti, abandoned vehicles, noise and light pollution, through to more serious crime. In the case of environmental damage and pollution Departments across Government work closely to support co-operation between the Environment Agency, local authorities and the police authorities, including dealing with the policing of these issues.

Police Costs

How much the Government estimate is the cost to the police of dealing with (a) fly-tipping (b) abandoned cars and (c) graffiti, (i) nationally and (ii) by police force. [193737]

We do not ask police forces to provide details of cost estimates to deal with fly-tipping, abandoned cars and graffiti either nationally or by police force.

We provide grant for police authorities based on overall estimates of their relative needs for the main sweep of policing. It is for the police authority and chief officer locally to determine precisely how to organise their budgets to address local problems.

Graffiti

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he will extend to other areas the trial which allows local authorities to charge businesses for graffiti removal after failure to respond to a graffiti removal notice. [193738]

The graffiti removal notice provisions in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 are being piloted in 12 local authority areas. It is already evident that the pilots have worked extremely well and other local authorities are keen to replicate the partnership arrangements that have been established. We are currently undertaking a regulatory impact assessment on the impact of the powers and consulting on the guidance which has been issued. The consultation period formally closes on the 31 December 2004. The responses will then be considered and a formal announcement made in early 2005.