What assessment he has made of the effect of the situation in Iraq on the UK's foreign policy goals.

The United Kingdom, with its international partners, remains committed to supporting Iraq's development into a secure and stable country, able to play its rightful role in the region and within the international community. This is consistent with our proactive approach to foreign policy, centred on the strategic goals that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary outlined to the House on 8 January 2008.

On 23 May 2003, Jerry Bremer, head of the coalition provincial authority, ordered the dissolution of the Iraqi army. A week before that, he had disbanded the Ba'ath party, alienating tens of thousands of Iraqis, including some 40,000 teachers and as many nurses and doctors. Will the Minister now concede that those were two of the biggest schoolboy errors in recent peacekeeping history and explain why Britain supported those decisions?

I do not think that "schoolboy errors" is the right description. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that tremendous resentment was felt towards the Ba'ath party and the Iraqi army for what they had done over the previous 10 years, including the appalling events in Kurdistan and the massacre of Shi'a s in the south. If he is asking whether I think, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was a mistake to do that, I shall defer to Mr. Simpson who is, among other things, a military historian, and can give his hon. Friend a more considered view. I think that it is easy to look at things with hindsight and to assume that the facts as we now know them were apparent at the time.

Are we not seeing a post-Iraq foreign policy emerging, exemplified by President Sarkozy's visit here, his desire to see a reintegration with NATO and to send more troops to Afghanistan, and also by Senator John McCain's statement on the front page of Le Monde at the weekend that the US must listen to its allies and rebuild relations with Europe? Is not the real lesson to learn that Europe and the US must work together and the US must listen to Europe? Britain has to be a leader in Europe, and the way forward is neither the anti-European populism of the right nor the stupid anti-US rhetoric of the left.

There is very little I disagree with in that.

The Minister will know as well as anyone the amount of disappointment felt by Britain's allies in the middle east at our failure to exercise more influence over the course of events in Iraq, in particular on the mistakes in American policy. Could the Minister give his assessment of the damage that has been done to the achievement of British foreign policy goals by the damage to our influence with our friends in the region?

I admire the hon. Gentleman's interest in this issue and I always have done. However, if he is implying that what Britain has done in the middle east is somehow more damaging than, for example, the duplicity that we have witnessed from some of the capitals in the middle east on issues such as Lebanon or support for the rejectionists in Gaza and the west bank, I disagree. The real damage is being done by those who want to see the middle east not as a settled, prosperous area, but under the influence of certain extremist groups and terrorists.

Last month I was in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and I met women's groups and trade union groups. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is by forging links with such groups seeking social justice that we will achieve our foreign policy goals in Iraq?

Yes, it is important to stress that there are parts of Iraq that have done extremely well over the past year or so. Like my hon. Friend, I visited Irbil recently and saw the encouraging developments there. What is required now is a sense of unity between Irbil, Baghdad and Basra that will enable that country to start to tap its enormous potential, because it could be very prosperous and a key country for the whole middle eastern region.

Does the Minister understand that many of us believe that our involvement in Iraq has done immense damage to Britain's national and international interests, and that that is one of several disreputable reasons why the present Government will not allow an immediate inquiry into Iraq?

No, I certainly do not agree. I do agree that our involvement in Iraq has generated tremendous controversy, and we have to accept that. It would be silly to deny it. However, on the other hand, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that Iraq is not now in a position to attack its neighbours, to gas and poison its own people or to commit the sort of atrocities that occurred before Saddam Hussein was removed.