What assessment he has made of the conclusions of the Iraq survey group.

The Government have read the conclusions of the Iraq survey group carefully. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has publicly accepted its principal conclusion that Saddam Hussein's regime did not possess stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

The Joint Intelligence Committee warned the Government that the limitations of its intelligence on weapons of mass destruction were not made sufficiently clear. Does that not mean that any future threats to the UK under this Administration may not be treated by Parliament and the public with the seriousness that they deserve?

I do not accept that. Since May 2003 there have been four inquiries—by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, Lord Hutton and Lord Butler. A central question, of course, for those inquiries was whether the Government had in any way acted improperly or dishonestly in using the intelligence available to them. All four inquiries concluded that such allegations were unfounded.

Are Britain's arguments against further military adventures strengthened by the fact that Bush's Iraq survey group not only failed to find any weapons of mass destruction but could only speculate on Saddam's future intentions on the basis of his perceived need to deter Iran and Israel? Surely, that proves that the imminent WMD threat to the United States, which the Bush Administration used to justify war, was absolute fantasy?

The report is extensive; if I recollect correctly, it is more than 800 pages long. Its central conclusions included the fact that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort, and indeed was pursuing an aggressive strategy of subverting the UN sanctions and the oil-for-food programme. The report therefore comes to a range of conclusions, and I do not accept the point made by my hon. Friend. Frankly, the issue has been well ventilated in the House on a number of occasions.

In the light of the survey group's findings, does the Minister agree that Hans Blix was right to ask for more time? Does he not agree that if Dr. Blix's pleas had been heeded, conflict could have been avoided?

Dr. Blix's views on this issue are clearly important. As the executive secretary of UNMOVIC, mandated under United Nations Security Council resolution 1284, he was shown a draft of the Government's September 2002 dossier and commented that he felt that some sections of it understated Iraq's capabilities. It is too often forgotten by people who disagreed with the Government's action that UN resolution 1441 was adopted unanimously by all members of the Security Council.

On what date was the British Government first consulted by the Americans about the winding up of the survey group?

In relation to what my hon. Friend describes as the winding up of the survey group, it is the case that it continues to undertake work inside Iraq. It is certainly the case that Charles Duelfer has returned to the United States. None the less, the group continues to work closely with the multinational force.

Given the Iraq survey group's failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, and the Prime Minister's persistent assertions when questioned on WMD that we should await the outcome of the survey, when will the Government report to the House why the Prime Minister, in his insistence that weapons of mass destruction existed, got it so wrong?

It is of course the case that people have made criticisms of the Government's action, but they can hardly include in that a failure by the House to discuss the issue. Quite reasonably, as I said, we have had four inquiries looking into the matter. The House has had the opportunity to discuss the issue on numerous occasions, and there is little that can be added to the extensive debates that it has already had on the subject.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although people are seeking, and have sought, weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's capability to produce those weapons was unquestionable? Moreover, it had demonstrated its capacity to use them extensively in northern Kurdistan. It retained that capability until the invasion of Iraq, which sought to reduce the problem completely and for ever.

I concur with my hon. Friend. No other country in modern times has used chemical weapons against both its neighbours and its own civilian population. That is an important corrective to some of the arguments that we have heard in the House in recent months. It is important to recognise that whatever the divisions in the House—which were present at the time the action was taken—there is now common ground across the House about the need to support the efforts of the Iraqi people as they look ahead to the democratic elections at the end of the week

As the Minister said, the Iraq survey group report highlighted the link between corruption at the UN during the oil-for-food scandal and the current security situation in Iraq. Does the Foreign Office believe that responsibility for that scandal rests inside the UN itself, owing to a lack of accountability and transparency, or with the countries of the Security Council, who knew that it was going on but failed to take any action?

That is an important question, which is why we have supported fully the decision to set up a high-level inquiry within the United Nations. We fully support Paul Volcker in his efforts. It would be injudicious for me to comment on specific allegations while that inquiry continues, but I can assure the House that the Government continue to co-operate fully with the inquiry as it moves forward.