Question: President Bush is set to visit the UK this month. What do you think should be on the agenda regarding international development issues?

Tom Brake: Clearly there must be something on the agenda about the way forward after the debacle at Cancun. The outcome was very disappointing.

No agreement was reached and the blame must lie partly with the Americans and partly with the EU.

The developed countries have a lot less to lose through these talks than the developing countries so the significant concessions need to come from the richer nations.

Question: How much do you think President Bush is prepared to give ground?

Tom Brake: I'm afraid that so far the indication is that American policy, not just to international development but to a whole host of issues such as climate change, is one of retrenchment and isolation rather than constructive engagement.

The prospect of the Americans addressing the very substantial subsidies that they give to their farmers is very remote.

The EU also subsidises its farmers. People in the Third World live on a dollar a day but a cow in the EU receives two dollars a day in subsidies.

Until this is addressed then the developing countries will remain at a disadvantage with significant problems of poverty.

Question: Should Britain take this up with our EU partners?

Tom Brake: With Cancun, the post summit situation, Britain must sit down with the EU Commission, and Pascal Lammy in particular and get him to agree that the Singapore issues that developed countries want on the agenda are put on the backburner.

These issues - such as financial investment - are not directly related to development in the way that reducing agriculture subsidies are.

If we go into future talks without this it will ensure that the negotiations - such as those in Geneva over the next few months - will fail.

Question: Were the CAP reforms of earlier this year as significant as was claimed at the time?

Tom Brake: No. Certainly the developing countries perceive them as being big enough to make a difference to them from a trade point of view.

The subsidies that the EU grant for agriculture dwarf the aid that is given to Africa.

CAP prices out of the international market produce from Africa which is actually grown much more cheaply but doesn't benefit from the subsidies.

Question: What would you like to see from President Bush on the reconstruction of Iraq?

Tom Brake: Before humanitarian aid can start to have a positive impact they have got to resolve a deteriorating security situation.

This will require a more significant role for the UN.

The absolute priority must be to ensure that the role for the UN is enhanced and the profile of the US and UK is reduced.

Question: What are the odds of that happening?

Tom Brake: They are definitely improving. Regrettably both the US and Britain are seeing significant casualties.

The political price that President Bush is paying is one which will encourage them in the short-term to increase troop numbers.

But I think it's with the view to trying to pull out or reduce their longer-term involvement in Iraq sooner than anticipated.

Question: Could the terrorist campaign hasten the UN taking the lead in Iraq?

Tom Brake: I would hate to say that any terrorist campaign has a positive outcome because clearly the effect is that more people are being killed - whether it's troops or Iraqi civilians and police.

One of the likely outcomes is that the Americans will seek to involve other players, and the UN in particular, sooner than they would have otherwise.

Question: There is a limited amount in the UK aid budget. Do you think Iraq has distorted priorities?

Tom Brake: It was a risk. Finally the government has admitted in a written statement that it is not just a risk but something that has finally happened.

The government have admitted that they have transferred £50 million worth of aid that had been allocated to countries elsewhere have been transferred to Iraq's reconstruction.

What concerns me is that whilst the Department for International Development has to respond to the here and now, before the Iraq war these projects - such as those in Romania - were deemed to be a priority.

Now they are no longer deemed a priority and the resources have been switched to Iraq.

Question: If the money has stopped then do you think initiatives are at risk?

Tom Brake: First of all there is the issue of projects that will not take place that had been previously identified as being worthwhile.

There's also the problem that some are being stopped early and you have to ask whether they will now be able to deliver what had been anticipated.

If they've been planned over a number of years and are now stopped, the outcome could be not nearly as valuable.

Question: Do you think this is because the department is missing the 'Clare Short factor'?

Tom Brake: I think it is a battle that Clare Short would have won. She would have ensured that the department did not have to pick up the tab for a military intervention which was not initiated by it.

It would have been very difficult to get her to agree to money being switched to Iraq. I would have thought Iraq is exactly what contingency funds are for.