Today the prime minister is in the Middle East, attempting to revive the peace process. He leaves behind a Labour party feeling battered and bruised after the last week.

We must not only stop arguing, but get on with the task that everyone agrees is needed. After nearly 10 years in government, in which we have achieved much, we must think hard about how we go forward. This must include tackling the mistrust about our foreign policy, which has become a cause of resentment both within and outside Labour.

This month’s party conference offers an opportunity for debate, unprecedented since we’ve been in government. But I don’t think that we can make progress on our renewal unless people are prepared to listen to us; to take seriously what we say about the Tories, believe what we say about our achievements in government, and have confidence in the plans we set out for the future.

That makes it essential that we rebuild trust in Labour, including tackling the mistrust that arose from our use of force in Iraq.

Despite the fact that for the first time parliament was given a vote before we used force in Iraq and that since then there has been a chance for everyone to vote in a general election, which returned a Labour government, the question of Iraq and how we approach foreign policy has become a symbol of mistrust and division between the Labour leadership and the party and the government and the country.

The war in Iraq, our relationship with the United States and our position on the conflict in the Lebanon this summer are all recurrent themes among those disillusioned with our party.

We have to address the widespread perception that we do not listen. People no longer accept that foreign policy can be left to the prime minister and the Queen, ambassadors and diplomats.

We can learn lessons from George Robertson’s Strategic Defence Review in 1997.

As new Labour’s first secretary of state for defence, he took that hitherto most inward-looking and secretive of departments, the Ministry of Defence, and led a review that involved not only the military but also the defence industry trade unions and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade among others to forge a consensus about the role of Britain’s defence policy in the post-cold war world.

Could something similar be done with the Foreign Office? Could we open up foreign policy, for much broader public debate, rather than allowing it to remain the exclusive preserve of “experts”? Why shouldn’t the public have more say in our approach to the rest of the world?

People see the connection between the immigration issues they care about and our foreign policy. They travel abroad more and many come from overseas and care deeply about their country of origin. And 24-hour television brings events from all over the world into our homes.

We should consider how we can make the Foreign Office a department which looks to people at home as well as abroad. Democratisation of the Foreign Office, as a key aspect of renewal, would see it catch up with the outward-looking culture that Labour has driven through the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Home Office.

I am not suggesting we have a referendum on every decision. That would plainly be wrong. But people must be able to have a say and engage in dialogue.

Other government departments conduct exhaustive public consultations before new initiatives or changes in policy.

Could the Foreign Office do something similar, allowing people to feel there is dialogue about vital issues such as our approach to the Middle East peace process, our special relationship with America and what we do in the Third World.

At our party conference we will have a wide-ranging debate and the fringe meetings will be crowded in a way that hasn’t been seen since the seismic changes which took us from an unelectable party of opposition to a party of government.

As well as a lively debate about foreign policy, we must formulate a new approach to the Tories. David Cameron presents himself as a pro-environment, anti-apartheid, family-friendly New Man. This is all bogus and we must expose the reality behind the photo calls. How deep can his commitment be to ensuring racial equality if he didn’t discover it till he was over 30?

On the environment he remains opposed to the tough action necessary to tackle global warming. And his commitment to women’s representation is an attempt to get women’s votes so Tory men can wield power.

We must also remind people of our record as we step up our delivery of the manifesto promises. Otherwise they will take for granted the extra doctors and nurses that have slashed hospital waiting times. They will assume that there was always a minimum wage and forget that the new right to paid paternity leave was introduced by Labour and opposed by the Tories.

Some people fear Labour cannot renew itself while it is still in government. That is not only wrong but reckless. That Labour remains in government matters to all of those who need a strong economy and a fair society.

And we can have an open policy debate without descending into personal rivalries and division.