With permission, I will make a statement on the NATO summit in Washington on 23 to 25 April. I was accompanied by the Foreign and Defence Secretaries and the Chief of the Defence Staff. Copies of the Washington declaration, the alliance's new strategic concept, the summit communiqué, our separate statement on Kosovo and other summit documents are being placed in the Library of the House.

The summit was naturally dominated by Kosovo. NATO reaffirmed its basic and unalterable demands: Milosevic must withdraw his troops and paramilitaries; an international military force must be deployed; and the refugees must be returned in peace and security to their homeland. The communiqué on Kosovo made it clear that these demands will not be compromised.

NATO decided that the air campaign should be intensified, that the number of aircraft and targets should be expanded and that the economic measures against Belgrade should be increased. In particular, we agreed an embargo on oil, to be made effective by the measures that were necessary, including maritime operations.

There was also discussion on the circumstances in which ground troops would be deployed. As I said to the House of Commons last week, the difficulties of a land force invasion of Kosovo against undegraded Serb resistance remain, but Milosevic has no veto over NATO's actions. It was agreed at the summit that the Secretary-General of NATO and the military planners should now update their assessments of all contingencies. Meanwhile, the build-up of forces in the region continues.

In addition, we agreed to provide all assistance to the International War Crimes Tribunal in respect of the atrocities committed against Kosovar Albanians. We also warned Belgrade against any move to undermine the democratically elected Government of President Djukanovic in Montenegro.

NATO's military commanders, General Clark and General Naumann, briefed the summit on the progress of the air campaign. NATO has largely isolated the Kosovo battlefield, and built what General Naumann described as a ring of steel around the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: 690 aircraft and 20 ships are now deployed, more than double the force at the outset of this campaign. Half the key Serb fighter planes are now destroyed. FRY air defences are ineffective, with more than 70 aircraft and some 40 per cent. of SAM3s and 25 per cent. of SAM6s destroyed.

Oil refining and distribution have been massively disrupted, which has already led to Serb operations in Kosovo being halted on several occasions in the past two weeks. The day before the summit meeting, six tanks, 27 military vehicles and an infantry column had all been destroyed in Kosovo. These operations continue and, as the weather clears and more attack weapons arrive, that type of action will become a daily occurrence.

Russian efforts to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis are welcome, but there can be no alteration to our fundamental demands.

NATO will also continue its efforts to relieve the humanitarian crisis that Milosevic has cynically provoked in and around Kosovo. NATO troops have helped deliver 11,000 tonnes of aid, and provided food and shelter to some 85,000 refugees. I met the Presidents of Albania and Macedonia, and pledged Britain's support for them in dealing with the refugee crisis that Milosevic's repression has created.

The full extent of the horrific repression by Serb forces in Kosovo is only now emerging. There has been organised systematic rape of women, usually in front of husbands and children. Young men have been forced to dig graves, and then shot. Whole villages have been razed to the ground. Some of the stories of the cruelty and barbarity practised by Serb militia are evil beyond belief. We have heard reports of Kosovars hiding in the hills for weeks and having to walk for days to escape Serb repression. Some—particularly children and the elderly—died as they tried to escape. Some who have escaped—including children—have reached safety with bullet or shrapnel wounds inflicted by Serb forces. The UNHCRthe United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—has today substantiated reports that women and children are now being used as human shields, including in a building used to store ammunition. Those acts remain the essential justification for NATO's actions.

In the meeting with the leaders of the seven non-NATO countries neighbouring Serbia, we were united in our resolve to strengthen efforts to promote stability and development in south-east Europe. For their part, what was remarkable was the view of the front-line states that the NATO action was just, and that NATO must win. Milosevic is now a pariah even in his own region.

We also looked ahead at means of contributing to the long-term stability of all the Balkan states. At our initiative, NATO leaders agreed to establish a regional security forum for south-east Europe between NATO and the countries of that region. It was agreed that NATO should work together with the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union and the international financial institutions in that endeavour.

The summit had an important agenda before it-quite apart from the Kosovo crisis. It was the occasion on which to adapt the alliance to meet future needs and challenges. Although NATO's fundamental role will remain the defence and security of the allies, there was an equally strong consensus on the need for a more capable and flexible alliance, able to contribute to security throughout the Euro-Atlantic area and to promote the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law for which NATO has stood since its foundation. In doing that, member states reaffirmed their commitment to the Washington treaty and to the United Nations charter.

We approved an updated strategic concept, which set out the fundamental security tasks of the alliance and how we intend to fulfil them. Common defence and the transatlantic link will, of course, remain the bedrock of the alliance. However, the new strategic concept recognises that in today's world, the ability to respond to crises and develop partnership with countries that were once our adversaries is crucial to our interests and to the promotion of our values. The strategic concept also provides top-level guidance for the restructuring of alliance military forces. The defence capabilities initiative, agreed at the summit, will give effect to that by adapting and modernising NATO's capabilities along similar lines to this country's strategic defence review.

The strong partnership between the European and north American members of the alliance is the key to the success of NATO and to our security. The summit unanimously welcomed and endorsed the initiative, which President Chirac and I launched at our summit last December in St. Malo, to develop a European defence capability for crisis management operations where the alliance as a whole is not engaged.

A stronger European capability will strengthen NATO and is fully compatible with our commitment to NATO. Making NATO a more balanced partnership will strengthen the essential transatlantic link. The alliance stands ready, as the EU defines its defence arrangements, to make NATO force planning, NATO assets and NATO headquarters available for EU-led crisis management operations, subject to the necessary approval of the North Atlantic Council. We emphasised the importance of involving fully in that process those allies that are not members of the EU. Those decisions will ensure that NATO and European capabilities develop in a fully compatible manner.

In Washington, we welcomed for the first time at a NATO summit the leaders of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic—the alliance's new members. We reaffirmed the alliance's continuing openness to new members and agreed a new membership action plan for countries that aspire to join the alliance.

We met the Heads of Government of 23 non-NATO nations in a summit meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council which showed the breadth of support of the alliance's efforts to spread security and stability throughout the Euro-Atlantic area. Regrettably, Russia was not represented at that meeting. However, throughout our discussions and in the communiqué, we made clear our wish to work co-operatively with Russia on a wide range of security issues and to resume regular NATO consultation and co-operation with Russia in the Permanent Joint Council.

There were two key outcomes of the summit. First, a new vision for the future of NATO was set out, of new roles for NATO, new capability and new partnership with the nations of central and eastern Europe and beyond in central Asia. Secondly, there was the total and unified commitment of all the members of the alliance to defeat and to reverse the policy of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Each leader began his statement by saying that NATO will and must prevail. It is now our collective task to make that victory—a victory of justice over evil—a reality for Kosovo's long-suffering people.

I pay tribute to NATO's achievements. The alliance has given us peace in western Europe for 50 years and played the major part in winning the cold war. Now, it has new challenges, and there was no more dramatic sign of that than the arrival of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic at the summit.

We welcome the announcement of the defence agreement with Macedonia and Albania, and of the security forum with other neighbouring states. We continue to support the NATO action in Kosovo, and share the horror throughout the House at what has happened there. We believe that it is vital that NATO finishes what it has started. We again pay tribute to the courage of our service men, who risk their lives there every day. Does the Prime Minister agree that what they need at all times as they carry out their difficult job is clarity about objectives and policy?

I should like clarification of four sets of issues relating to the NATO summit, the first of which is the possible use of ground troops. Last week, the Prime Minister signalled a change in the position—a change in the language—in respect of the use of ground troops. He ruled out a land force invasion against an "undegraded"—the same word he used today—or "organised" Serb military machine, and therefore appeared to imply that a land force could be deployed against a Serb army that was degraded or disorganised.

Does the Prime Minister accept that, although that approach may well be justified, it will require a fuller explanation than has so far been given to the House, as well as clear and achievable objectives? Can he explain what success he has had in convincing our NATO allies of the case for changing the policy? Is the use of ground forces now this country's preferred strategy? The use of ground forces would take some time to plan, assemble and implement, so does the Prime Minister accept that any decision in that respect would have to be made in the very near future, if that force were to be deployed, do its job and ensure that the refugees could return home before winter set in?

Secondly, I ask about the oil embargo, which also may well be justified. NATO has decided to board and inspect all ships; will the Prime Minister assure the House that there is a legal basis for that decision? What does NATO plan to do if the ships decline to be boarded? Will force be used? Does the Prime Minister accept the need for very clear terms of engagement for sailors who will be called on to make instant decisions to enforce such a policy? May we assume that those terms of engagement have been made clear to foreign Governments? Does the pursuit of that policy carry any implications for Russian ships and for relations with Russia?

Thirdly, on the question on the removal or the future of Milosevic, the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend that the politics of ethnic hatred could be securely defeated

"only when we get a change of regime in Belgrade",

but he reiterated the fact that ousting Milosevic was not a NATO military objective. How are those two statements to be reconciled? Will the Prime Minister also clarify his comment last week that we shall carry on until Milosevic steps down?

Finally, there is a need for clarity, not only on the immediate tasks facing NATO, but on its long-term future. The Opposition strongly support a new and more flexible approach that frees the organisation from its cold war role, but where does the development of an EU-led, rather than a Western. European Union-led, capability leave countries such as Turkey—countries of vital strategic importance which are members of NATO, but not of the EU? How exactly will they be fully involved and kept fully informed in the way in which the Prime Minister outlined in his statement? The communiqué says that the European defence identity will be developed within the NATO structures, but the St. Malo agreement that the Prime Minister signed in December provided for the development of an EU defence identity inside or outside NATO. Are those two agreements reconciled easily?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his broad support of NATO's action.

Britain suggested that we should make it clear that Macedonia and Albania will receive support in whatever form they need it. It emerged from the summit that we need to provide those countries with substantial financial support through the European Union and elsewhere—and that will be done.

I pay tribute again to the courage shown by our service men and women in undertaking this military action and to the quite remarkable way in which they have assisted with the humanitarian effort. Wherever I go in the world and speak to people about the British troops in the Balkans, they say that they are stunned by the professionalism of our troops, their ability to react quickly and the way in which they really care for the refugees under their control. That reflects enormously well on our service men in every way.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the clarity of objectives. As to ground troops, I simply repeat what I said last week and two weeks before that. I think there is a limit—as I have said before—on the degree to which we should discuss every possibility of military tactics and strategy. We continue the air campaign; we do not rule out any options. The Secretary-General and NATO have been tasked with updating their assessments and plans. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we must begin consideration and planning, for all the reasons that have been given. That is being done.

It was decided to impose an effective oil blockade, and NATO has been asked to outline the precise circumstances in which we will intercept in a maritime or other sense. We must obviously ensure that there are proper rules of engagement and that our actions are compatible with international law. Reports must be made to NATO on those points.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out accurately the position regarding Milosevic. The five objectives that NATO set out at the outset remain. It is not an aim of the military action to remove Milosevic. However, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, while Milosevic remains, the security situation of this region is more difficult. I think that is a statement of the obvious. The aims remain as we set them out.

The right hon. Gentleman made two final points. First, we were involved in very good discussions with Turkey in which we pointed out that it is to be involved in the decision-making process. It is important that, in developing a European strategic defence identity, we show sensitivity to countries outside the European Union. That is particularly important in the case of Turkey, which is such a valued member of the NATO alliance.

Secondly, as to the European defence initiative, the position remains as it is set out in the communiqué. In that communiqué, we make it absolutely clear that, although there will be circumstances in which the EU decides to act, they will be subject to full consultation with NATO. There is no question of NATO assets being used except with the consent of NATO. The purpose of the defence identity is to ensure that European common defence policy develops in a way that is fully compatible with NATO. There may be some in the European Union who are less sensitive to that issue than we are. However, we think it is important to get the NATO alliance's blessing regarding this defence initiative. It must be entirely clear that the European defence initiative and NATO are fully compatible and that the fundamental bedrock of this country's defence remains NATO.

This was obviously a successful NATO conference. Unity is a priceless asset at this time. I have three topics to raise with the Prime Minister: front-line states, refugees and the military.

First, I am delighted that NATO has now emphasised the condition of front-line states. Is it not the case that, if Milosevic were to succeed in destabilising Macedonia and the Thessaloniki area of Greece, he could win in Kosovo without a shot being fired? If we are to ensure the security of our rear areas, we have to make it absolutely certain that we are particularly aware of the problems of poverty in Albania—which is bearing the heavy burden of refugees—the delicate ethnic balance in Macedonia and the difficulties that the Macedonian economy will face as a result of the imposition of sanctions on Belgrade.

I draw the Prime Minister's attention to Montenegro. If President Milosevic sought to use VJ—Yugoslav army—units to overturn the democratically elected Government of Montenegro, and Mr. Djukanovic were to ask NATO for assistance, would NATO give a constructive answer to such a request?

Secondly, on refugees, is it not the case that President Milosevic uses refugees as an instrument of war, so we have to be able to win on that battlefield as well? Frankly, the UNHCR has not yet got a grip on the situation in Macedonia and Albania. We may be able to assist the UNHCR with NATO troops, and I would be grateful if the Minister gave us an undertaking that we shall do that as long as necessary, particularly in providing heavy-lift ability from the Albanian border, which was nearly swamped 10 days ago.

On the military, I agree with the Prime Minister that we ought not to be broadcasting our shots and saying in detail what we should do. That is why I wish that we had not said, at the start, that we would not use ground troops. If there are to be troops on the ground, there must be clarity of mission and purpose. Unfortunately, the troops that we now have on the ground were designed, and have a mission designed, around the Rambouillet agreement. Certain elements of that agreement have simply been overtaken by events, so we must begin to update that mission and the posture.

Unless we are prepared soon to make a decision on the reinforcement of those troops against the contingency that we may have to use them on the ground, against whatever opposition there is, we may find that we have left it too late. Surely it would be a disaster if NATO were to achieve its air aims and give us an opportunity to use ground troops, but we had not made a decision early enough. Would that not be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

On the latter point, I agree that that is precisely why it is important that the Secretary-General and NATO are now undertaking their assessments. In any event, there is a continuing build-up of forces in the region.

I want to make two points about the front-line states. First, if I had any doubt about the necessity for our action—which I do not—hearing representatives of the front-line states speak at the meeting would have removed that doubt. Those people are in the front line and bear the burden of living next to Milosevic. They experience difficulties with their public opinion and attempts to destabilise their Governments and suffer the economic consequences of the events.

The front-line states have no doubt that NATO has to succeed or that Milosevic stands in the way of the future that they want for south-east Europe. That future is as part of Europe and, in many cases, part of NATO, and it is a future in which there should also be a place for a democratic Serbia. All that is possible. The impassioned speeches of those people, many of whom have difficulties at home, were the most eloquent testimony to the need to continue the action and see it through.

On the money for Albania and Macedonia, we have agreed 100 million euro of immediate budgetary aid for Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro, and 150 million euro of humanitarian assistance, but we are also considering giving those states bilateral and other assistance. So we know that we have a financial commitment, which we must stand behind, to those countries. I believe that they were greatly helped by the sense of obligation among the NATO states.

In respect of Montenegro, I can only repeat what is in the NATO communiqué—that grave consequences would follow any attempt by Milosevic to destabilise that regime. I think we know that Montenegro has been a bastion of democracy against Milosevic, and it is important that we give it every support that we possibly can.

Refugees have been used as an instrument of war. NATO troops are ready to help the UNHCR. There are still some shortcomings—which we need to deal within the way in which that procedure is operating, although I pay tribute to our Department for International Development, which has done a magnificent job in helping. Were it not for the British troop contribution and the contribution of DFID, the situation would be much more serious.

It is clearly vital to deny the Serb war machine the fuel supplies on which it relies. How can that be done without destabilising the democratic Government in Montenegro, and what assessment has been made of the response of Russia to such a blockade of its ships?

It was precisely because of the sensitivity of Montenegro that we made mention of maritime operations. As the communiqué says, we shall look at all the ways that we can do so with sensitivity to the situation for Montenegro. In the end, however, the single best security that Montenegro can have is a swift and successful prosecution of this NATO allied effort.

A desire to keep Russia engaged emerged very strongly from the summit. We have made every effort to open lines of communication, and to keep them open. It is now clear that Russia essentially—with some differences of opinion over the nature of the international force—supports the NATO aims and demands. It disagrees, it is true, with the action that is being taken, but the fact that Russia is in that position is significant in itself, and—as I made clear—we must go out of our way to demonstrate, not just our sensitivity to Russian concerns, but our desire to make Russia part of the solution.

I strongly support what the Prime Minister just said about giving proper respect to the views of Russia.

I previously raised the question of the Secretary-General having given a security guarantee to neighbouring states. Do I understand from this communiqué that that has now been confirmed by the NATO summit in respect of any aggression from Milosevic?

May I ask the Prime Minister about something that he has not mentioned in his statement? Milosevic regarded the presence of the Kosovo Liberation Army as the one immediate obstacle on the ground to his policy of total ethnic cleansing. What is the position of NATO on the KLA? A recent report in Jane's Intelligence Review says that there are on the ground 24,000 KLA troops of one sort or another. Is it NATO's policy, in the present situation—in advance of any other ground troops—to give any help that it can to the KLA and the rapidly increasing number of recruits coming from other parts of the world, willing to defend Kosovar interests in Kosovo?

In respect of the KLA, the position remains as it is, in part because of the UN resolutions, although it is true that the KLA is having greater success on the ground in Kosovo, and indeed has retaken certain parts of it.

In respect of the Secretary-General and the assurances given to neighbouring states, I simply refer the right hon. Gentleman to the language in the communiqué. Milosevic should be under no doubt at all that we recognise our obligation to those surrounding states; that is what I take the words "grave consequences" to mean.

In respect of Russia, we have made a series of efforts to get a message through to it. I have spoken in the Russian media. In the speech that I made in Chicago the other night, I went out of my way to say that I think that we should be presenting a proper economic package to the G8 summit in Cologne. Of course, we must ensure that any assistance given is properly used. 1 think that we should almost use these events as an opportunity to renew our commitment to helping Russia make the transition. If we do that, one good will have come out of this situation.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the absolute human calamity that we see on our screens every day, which has become much worse since the bombing began, makes a contrast in our minds between the sums of money paid to help the refugees, running into millions of pounds, and the cost of the war, which is running into billions and billions of pounds? It is clearly creating in Yugoslavia a humanitarian crisis that, with the destruction of its infrastructure, will be much, much more serious than anybody realises.

Will my right hon. Friend explain why it was that the French vetoed at the Washington meeting the idea of a blockade? Will he indicate whether the NATO Ministers agreed in principle to the use of ground troops, or is that an issue on which they are not yet agreed?

In respect of the last two points, the position on ground troops is as I set it out, and the Secretary-General has been tasked with undertaking the planning and assessment, as I have pointed out. The French have not issued a veto on the oil blockade. That blockade is the unanimous desire of all member states. Indeed, within the past hour, the European Union has issued a list of further economic sanctions.

There is no doubt that the conflict is expensive to prosecute. However, the policy of ethnic cleansing began before a NATO bomb ever dropped. We have just presented a series of pieces of evidence to the International War Crimes Tribunal, which is based on the details that we have received from the Kosovar Albanian refugees. I have it before me. There are pages upon pages reporting incidents of unbelievable atrocities, cruelty and barbarity carried out under Milosevic's express orders.

The campaign waged by the Serb militia and the paramilitaries in Kosovo is a deliberate act of policy. In the end, I agree that war is a nasty and expensive business. However, the choice is, and always has been, that either we allow Milosevic to do this unhindered or we stop him. The front-line states—this made the greatest impression on me throughout the summer—know that, if he had been able to carry out this policy of repression in the name of Serbian nationalism in Kosovo, the entire region would have been destabilised. We have a mission to defeat the policy of ethnic cleansing, and we must do everything that is necessary to see it through.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to his answer about the position of Milosevic? Given the appalling atrocities for which he bears direct responsibility, is it not inconceivable that Milosevic should remain as Head of State in any circumstances when this war is over?

The aims remain as they are. However, I said earlier that, first, I do not regard these aims as a matter of negotiation with Milosevic and that, secondly, there is no doubt that the security of the region remains at risk while he remains in power. This is NATO action and it is taken on the basis of the demands that we set out, and those remain the objectives.

I join my right hon. Friend in particularly welcoming his support of the front-line states, which are dealing daily with the threats and human consequences of Milosevic's brutal regime. Does my right hon. Friend agree that their support for NATO gives a sign of how successful NATO has been as a military alliance for the past 50 years? Does he further agree that those of us who have grown up in western Europe since the end of the second world war should not forget that the peace and security that we take for granted in our daily lives have been delivered largely by NATO?

I agree entirely with those sentiments and would add two things. First, let us never forget that 250,000 people died as a result of the Bosnian conflict and 3.25 million people are refugees as a result of Milosevic's earlier actions. Therefore, allowing him to carry on that policy now would be gravely irresponsible.

Secondly, NATO has been a success, without any doubt. It will continue to be a success if it succeeds in setting its course and direction against this policy of ethnic cleansing. If NATO succeeds, the next time someone tries such a policy and we make a threat it will be credible. Were we to fail—which we will not and must not—the opposite would happen: people would know that, when NATO threatened, it would not be a threat to be taken seriously. That is why people do not talk about NATO's credibility in some abstract sense; it is a necessary part of building peace and security for the long term.

I join the Prime Minister is his condemnation of President Milosevic, but is it none the less the case that any settlement in Kosovo that is deeply objectionable to the bulk of the Serb people would not stick and would eventually be a recipe for trouble—year after year and generation after generation?

In France, at the Rambouillet talks, we had a solution that would and should have been acceptable to the Serbian people. It was rejected by Milosevic. If anyone is responsible for the present situation, it is him; but I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I cannot imagine anything more irresponsible than entering into an agreement guaranteeing the rights of people in Kosovo only with the permission of Milosevic.

In what circumstances would NATO or the Government seek a mandate from the United Nations to put in ground troops? Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us who support the broad thrust of policy are nevertheless somewhat unhappy and find some difficulty in respect of our mandate?

There is provision in the UN charter—the uniting for peace procedure—whereby a special meeting of the General Assembly of the UN can be called to give a mandate. Will that be considered as one of the options in relation to the general policy and, specifically, can we be assured that, whether troops go in to broker peace or go in as peacekeepers, an attempt will be made to get the support of the UN—either at Security Council or at General Assembly level—particularly in view of the increasing marginalisation of Russia, which is felt in that country?

The way to answer that is to say again that we keep in close touch with the UN. The Secretary-General has been involved and has essentially backed the NATO demands. There is a difficulty with saying that we will only ever act with a UN mandate, for reasons that are obvious to people. Of course we always prefer to act in such a way, but the action that we have taken is justified in its own terms and we believe that it is lawful in its own terms. That does not mean that we do not work closely with the UN and, indeed, with Russia. That is precisely what we are doing.

I wonder whether we can ask for a little more clarity about targeting; we need it because last week, for the first time, NATO attacked a target—the television station in Belgrade—which could not have been destroyed but for the certainty of killing civilians inside it. With that attack, NATO crossed a rubicon which, in my judgment, should not have been crossed. If we are unwilling to adopt a conclusive strategy—which, as the Prime Minister knows very well, includes the use of ground troops—surely we have to spare the innocent civilians.

People cannot have this all ways round, I am afraid. The television stations and the Serbian media are part of the Milosevic power apparatus—part of the apparatus that keeps him in power and allows his dictatorship to carry out the policies of ethnic cleansing. I have no doubt at all that action was justified. We do everything we can to minimise civilian casualties, but I am afraid that a conflict such as this is an unpleasant business. There is no nice way of conducting it. What is important is to conduct it in such a way that we leave Milosevic and his regime in no doubt that we will carry on pounding every part of that regime day after day until it accedes to the NATO demands. That is the only thing that we can do. The best answer to people who accuse us of risking civilian casualties is to say that we do everything that we can to avoid civilian casualties. Compare and contrast that with the deliberate and brutal murder of people in Kosovo.

If the Prime Minister is so certain about the states in the region, why are the Austrians denying NATO air space? Why are the Greeks denying NATO the use of the port of Thessaloniki and why has the mayor of Athens said that not a dock worker will lift a finger to help NATO in the port of Piraeus? When the Prime Minister answered the Leader of the Opposition, he talked about proper rules of engagement, and when he answered the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he said that every effort would be made to keep the lines of communication open. Let us suppose that a Russian oil ship were challenged entering the port of Bar or somewhere else in the Adriatic and refused to accept that challenge, what would then happen?

Finally, may I say to the Prime Minister that some of us—it may be a minority—are utterly, utterly appalled that he should have been the hawk in Washington?

First, in respect of Austria, the point about air space is in its constitution. Actually, Austria has been fully supportive of the NATO action. Secondly, the Greek Government are not denying NATO the use of Thessaloniki. Thirdly, I have already said that NATO has been charged with looking at how the oil blockade is conducted properly in accordance with international law. We would be fundamentally lacking in seriousness if we were undertaking military action and trying to cut off the oil supplies that Milosevic needs in order to have his tanks and other military vehicles carry out that appalling repression on the ground in Kosovo, without taking every possible measure to deny him the fuel. That would be utterly irresponsible. The better that embargo is, the swifter the resolution of the conflict will be.

As for being a hawk, it has nothing to do with that. I happen to believe that we are right to take this action. Having done so, we must see it through. It is as simple as that. I simply ask my hon. Friend to read the account that we shall submit to the International War Crimes Tribunal of what those people have done. Page after page shows that, in whole villages, people have been driven out at the point of a gun, if they are lucky, or murdered on the spot, if they are not lucky. Some of the tales of brutality towards the women on the part of the Serb militia are just unbelievable.

We cannot deny those facts. They are happening. We either do nothing and say that this can carry on—in the south-east of Europe—or we act. There are no easy options, which is why, for nine months, we tried to find a diplomatic solution. We bent over backwards to get a diplomatic solution. Possibly, we did more than we should have done; but we did it because we knew that, once a conflict starts, those ghastly things happen. We knew that there would be civilian casualties—there always are in a conflict such as this—but we cannot allow a policy of racial genocide to continue unchecked in Europe. If we did that, everyone who believes in the principles of my political party would feel a sense of betrayal.

As I was in the United States in the past few days, I welcome the Prime Minister's efforts to strengthen the body politic of the United States. First, is he absolutely convinced that the American President understands that this venture, now launched, will almost certainly require ground forces, and will the American President therefore lead American public opinion? Secondly, in his statement, the Prime Minister referred to "international military force" going into Kosovo. Did he mean a NATO-led force, which might well have international support? Lastly, I welcome the NATO statement on links with the European Union; but was it apparent from all the members of both organisations—NATO and the EU—that the European countries would probably need to increase their defence effort over the next few years, certainly if EU efforts were to be credible in any future ventures?

I have found America, and the American President in particular, to be absolutely staunch throughout this action. Let us be quite clear: this action would not be happening without the strength and support of the United States of America. I believe that the leadership that has been shown by America is wholly welcome and will remain. On the issue of the international military force, as I said in answer to questions last week, we believe that other nations could be involved, but it must have a NATO core.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the defence effort. EU countries will have to give serious consideration to what the defence capability in Europe should be in the next few years, as will other NATO countries. The strategic defence review puts us at the head of the game by quite a considerable distance—that is recognised by most of the other NATO countries—because it expands the elements of strategic capability that we need for such operations. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that, if we are to develop any sense of a proper European common defence policy, we must realise that that begins with capability.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members applaud the unity and determination of the NATO alliance to ensure its objectives in Kosovo? Is he also aware that many of us believe that, sooner or later, considerable numbers of ground troops will be required in Kosovo if the Kosovar refugees are to return home?

I believe that there is support for our objectives in the House. I do not want to add to what I have already said about ground troops, except to say that it is important for people to understand that the air campaign would, in any event and on any basis, be carrying on now. That campaign is being intensified, and, as the weather clears, it can be made more effective. It is possible both to exaggerate and to understate its impact. It is having a huge impact on Milosevic's military capability, and it is important that it continues and intensifies.

With specific reference to the decision on the oil embargo, the Prime Minister will be aware of recent reports suggesting that, among others, Texaco shipped oil from west Wales to Serbia some three weeks after the bombing started, that the French were delivering diesel as recently as 21 April, that the Italians and Greeks have continued to supply oil and that the Hungarians shipped Russian oil at the beginning of April.

Given the Prime Minister's remarks about being taken seriously on the imposition of the oil embargo, will he explain why these deliveries have been allowed to continue, particularly from countries with NATO membership? What does he think should be done with the profits that the companies have made from those deliveries? Has not an oil embargo always been one of the most effective sanctions against Serbia? Why was the decision to impose an embargo not taken considerably earlier?

It is precisely to make the oil embargo effective that the European Union has made it clear that all its members are expected to ensure and police the effectiveness of the oil embargo. That was the reason for the NATO statement. The idea that economic sanctions or the oil embargo alone would stop Milosevic is pie in the sky and naive beyond belief. We require the economic blockade and the oil embargo alongside other measures that are being taken. That is the only realistic way of defeating Milosevic.

When will the oil embargo commence? Will it involve, if necessary, the stopping and even the seizure of Russian ships carrying oil?

European Union members are committed to ensuring that no oil reaches the Serbian regime. As I said earlier, the NATO planners are charged with ensuring that the oil embargo is carried out in accordance with international law. I repeat to people who raise the issue of Russia to cause difficulties over the oil embargo that we would be very foolish if we conducted this air campaign without taking every measure possible to cut off the supply of fuel to Milosevic's regime.

In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), the Prime Minister used the phrase "NATO core". In the past, we have heard references to a NATO-led peacekeeping force. At the NATO summit, were there any discussions about the make-up of the peacekeeping force to try to bring the Russians on side? They are the key to the process.

It may well be true that NATO has to leave a force in the bulk of Kosovo, for obvious reasons, but was there any discussion of the possibility of a Russian-led peacekeeping force operating in areas of Kosovo, particularly those adjacent to Pec, near the monasteries, which are sacred to the Serb nation and the whole Orthodox world? That might reassure Serbia and her allies, and thus secure a settlement that would be accepted by both sides.

The hon. Gentleman referred to areas that are sensitive for the Serb minority. I shall not go into the details of which parts of the international force, when it arrives, will go into which areas to police them; that will be discussed at a later stage. It is, however, important for us to state constantly that our policy is to ensure that people in Kosovo, whether they are Serbs or Kosovar Albanians, can live in peace. That is an important part of our objectives. We are not fighting a battle on behalf of one ethnic community against another; we are fighting a battle for all ethnic communities to enjoy the same rights and freedoms.

I use the terms "NATO core" and "NATO-led force" interchangeably. As for the involvement of Russian troops, we have suggested that Russia could be part of such a force, and there are precedents for it.

Given that more than half a million people in Serbia are on-line on the internet, and given that CNN and BBC News 24 are listened to by perhaps millions of people there, is it not clear that ignorance can no longer be an excuse? Those people know exactly what is happening in Kosovo. That being the case, why does NATO not take a more hawkish line in its selection of targets and start to attack centres of public administration, so that public confidence in the state can be broken down in that society?

We believe that a large part of the population is completely in the grip of the Serb-controlled media. My hon. Friend will know that, just a few days ago, one of the most respected editors of a newspaper opposed to Milosevic was murdered. That is how Milosevic deals with people who oppose him in the media. As for the targets, they are carefully chosen when there is a civilian element, but the target is part of Milosevic's power apparatus. I think that they are the right targets.

In eastern Poland, during the second world war, my family underwent an experience very similar to the ordeal suffered by the Kosovars today. The handful who survived were rescued by Russian ground forces. No amount of aerial bombardment could have saved them. Milosevic should not have been told at the beginning that the use of ground forces was out of the question. Will the Prime Minister now reverse the statement that he made at the beginning of the crisis?

I have set out the position relating to ground forces, and I see no reason to go over it again. However, let me say to the hon. Gentleman— I know and respect his reasons for feeling strongly—that, even if we had committed ourselves to any number of land force invasions at the very beginning, we would be where we are now. The important thing is to ensure that we conduct all the necessary assessments, and continue to build up forces in the region.

In the event of a blockade of Yugoslavia, will NATO stop by force Russian ships from delivering oil or other goods to the port of Bar in Montenegro?

I have said in answer to earlier questions that NATO has charged its planners with coming back with a way of ensuring that the oil embargo is satisfactory, consistent with international law, and I really do not intend to add to that.

When the Prime Minister spoke of NATO's new strategic concept, he referred to the Euro-Atlantic area. Are we to take that to mean that NATO is still a regional security organisation? Bearing in mind the reach of intercontinental strategic missiles, their proliferation around the world and Britain's worldwide national interests, may we take it that NATO can perform operations out of area? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the mandate required? Is it possible for NATO to mandate itself through the North Atlantic Council, or will a mandate always require a United Nations Security Council resolution? If the latter, will NATO not become a United Nations enforcement force?

In respect of the hon. Gentleman's latter point, we state in the communiqué that of course we want to act with United Nations support, which is important. However, we cannot—as we are not doing in Kosovo—say that those are the only circumstances in which we shall ever act.

We are still essentially a regional alliance. However, NATO is changing and adapting, because the world in which we live is changing and adapting. The fact is that, 15 years ago, or even 10 years ago, NATO's purpose—which arose out of the cold war—was very clear; today, the position is different. The purpose of the new strategic concept is to allow us the flexibility, when we believe it necessary, to take other action. In the communiqué , we set out some of the circumstances in which that might apply. However, no, that does not change the basic nature of the alliance.

The House will have been moved by the Prime Minister's description and definition of what constitutes ethnic cleansing—barbarity, cruelty, brutality and the human calamity to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred. That type of suffering is not a once-in-a-lifetime matter, but—for those who have suffered it—lasts for a whole lifetime.

The Prime Minister mentioned an enhanced European capability for the European Union. Does he agree that a common foreign and defence policy for the Union is evolving?

Those who have listened to this debate will have heard the encouragement that the Prime Minister has given to Russia. Will he comment and elaborate on the visit of a high-ranking United States diplomat to Viktor Chernomyrdin, and agree that that line of communication should be kept open?

On the latter point, all lines of communication remain open. The purpose of the visit is obviously to continue to keep Russia engaged, and to try to ensure that Russia understands that we have no quarrel with the Russian people. However, we believe that the demands have to be met in full. Moreover, as I said, those demands are now very largely supported by Russia itself.

My hon. Friend was right on European capability. The common foreign and security policy is an agreement into which the European Union has entered. I think that we shall learn many lessons from the conflict in Kosovo about how that policy should be conducted in future.

rose—

Thank you, Prime Minister.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the bomb attacks at Brixton and Brick lane.

Last week, on Saturday 17 April, the explosion in a busy market street in Brixton, south London, injured 39 members of the public and three police officers. This Saturday, at about the same time, another improvised device exploded at Brick lane in east London, injuring six people. In both cases, no warnings were given.

I know that I speak for the whole House in expressing my deep sympathy to those injured in the blasts and to their families and friends, and our admiration for the very prompt way in which the police, fire and ambulance service responded.

Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, yesterday emphasised that the investigation into those evil acts is the No. 1 priority for the entire Metropolitan police service. The investigation is being led by the anti-terrorist branch, which has a great deal of experience of this kind of outrage, but the perpetrators are likely to be brought to justice only with the help of all sections of the community. I urge anyone who believes he or she has information which might help the police to contact them immediately.

Sir Paul Condon has already stated that he considers that the bombings were racially motivated. Brixton is at the heart of London's African-Caribbean community. Brick lane is at the heart of Britain's Bangladeshi community. I want to make clear that any attack on those communities is an attack on all British people—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the whole of British society. We will not tolerate racism of any kind, still less this pernicious and abhorrent violence.

Ours is a country that can be proud of its achievements in race relations, which make it a better and stronger society. Of course there is much more to be done to make Britain a truly multiracial and multicultural society, but the overwhelming public support for the recommendations of the Lawrence inquiry shows the strength of our commitment to achieve that aim.

The criminals who committed those attacks will not succeed. As in Brixton last week, the whole community in Tower Hamlets has come together to assist the police in every way possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said,

"History shows we do not tolerate this type of racism, however violent. If anything, I hope that some good will come out of this because both the black and the white community will strengthen so it will be overcome".

While the perpetrators of the violence remain at large, there is plainly a risk that they may strike again. We must meet that threat with vigilance, but without panic. The police are pursuing the investigations of the bombings and the protection of the public with the utmost vigour. I have every confidence in them, and I know that the whole House will share their determination and condemn those mindless crimes.

The Opposition join the Home Secretary in utterly condemning this action and the people responsible for it. We also join him in sending our deep sympathy to those injured by the two bombs. I also pay tribute to the emergency services, particularly the police, who demonstrated in a very practical way that they are there to serve all the community.

Let me ask the Home Secretary three short questions. First, is not the most important message that we should send out that such bombings will in no way influence policy or affect our determination to achieve the best possible community and race relations in Britain? A few extremists, however dangerous they may be, will not alter that aim and if the people who planted the bombs think otherwise, they do not understand either the determination or the decency of the British people.

Secondly, will the Home Secretary say something about the potential danger in cities outside London which have significant black and Asian communities? I assume that there is the prospect of the terrorists attacking other cities, so what precautions are being taken?

Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman about policy on the future strength of the police? The police now face demands for more community policing and more policemen and policewomen on the beat, as well as other officers to deal with such outrages. Does the Home Secretary agree that now is an opportunity to assess anew the demands on the police service and to look at future policy on the strength of the service?

Above all, this afternoon we join the Home Secretary in absolutely condemning the bombings and the people responsible for them. We want more than words of condemnation, however: we want the most effective possible action to be taken to bring these terrorists to justice.

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support for what I said, and especially for the support that he has expressed for the efforts of the police and the other emergency services. I am in no doubt of the resolve of Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and of every other officer in the service to ensure that those who perpetrated those terrible deeds are apprehended and brought to justice.

The right hon. Gentleman asked three questions. First, he asked whether I believe that such bombings may influence policy, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke for the whole House when he answered that question himself. Indeed, I believe that such outrages merely strengthen the resolve of every decent person in the country to reject racism in all its forms and to work towards a multiracial and multicultural society.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the potential danger in other cities. As I said in my statement, there continues to be a risk while those who perpetrated the bombings remain at large. By definition, we do not know where they may decide to plant bombs next, if they in fact make such a decision. That emphasises the need for vigilance in all communities and especially in those with substantial numbers of black and Asian people. Of course, police across the country are giving guidance to such areas, and especially to those that are considered vulnerable.

Finally, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the resources available to the Metropolitan police service were increased by 2.7 per cent. this year. As part of that, I increased by £25 million the special payment to the Metropolitan police service in respect of its national police functions, and it now has the resources to fight this kind of outrage.

The House has just heard about the Government's welcome and proactive role in combating ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will be equally proactive in tackling ethnic cleansing in our country, whose most recent manifestation occurred in my constituency? I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive my presumption that his answer to my question will be yes. Will he therefore consider making extra, emergency resources available to the communities that are being hit? That would allow the Brick lane police station to remain open, for a limited time, for 24 hours a day.

Also, will my right hon. Friend visit my constituency, so that he can hear the concerns of local residents? If so, will it be possible to make that visit within the next 24 hours, perhaps? Finally, when will he bring forward a new race relations Act to ensure that the only thing that is nailed—in my constituency or anywhere else—are the profoundly undemocratic and unpatriotic forces of racism?

On my hon. Friend's first point, at least the injuries suffered at Brick lane and Brixton are not on the scale of those incurred in Kosovo, but she is of course right to point out the link between the two sources of violence. That link is racism: people who hold such evil views decide that whole groups should be considered to be without human rights simply because of their skin colour or religion.

I shall of course raise with the Commissioner the question of resources for the Brick lane and Brixton areas, but so far he has not requested additional resources. My hon. Friend asked also about the Brick lane police station. In many parts of London, divisional police stations are open for 24 hours a day, while sector bases such as Brick lane police station are open for a limited number of hours each day. Up to now, that police station has been open for eight hours a day, and those hours have been publicised in the local community. However, I now understand that the base will be open for a minimum of 12 hours a day for the foreseeable future. I shall be happy to discuss the possibility of longer opening hours with the Commissioner.

My hon. Friend asked whether I would visit her constituency, and I plan to do so tomorrow. There are always questions about whether Ministers should visit the scenes of such crimes immediately. I discussed the matter with the Commissioner last Saturday following the first bomb outrage, and we jointly decided that it would inevitably detract from police efforts if I visited Brixton then. In my judgment, the fine balance to be struck was better struck when the local Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—who happens also to be a Home Office Minister—visited the area to discuss the problems that had arisen following the outrage. It is similarly right that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) should take the lead following the outrage in her constituency.

My hon. Friend asked about a new race relations Act. She will know from my statement on the Lawrence report in February that we aim to legislate as quickly as possible, and I hope that that will happen next year.

Is the Home Secretary aware that there is revulsion throughout the country at the way in which these crimes have visited injury on ordinary families going about their Saturday activities? Does he recognise that minority communities—racial and religious—will want to see evidence of extra security and support around commercial centres, community buildings and places of worship during the coming days? Is he satisfied that the existing law on incitement to racial hatred is being used actively enough to deal with some of the literature that circulates and that may act as a kind of recruitment for people to help those who committed those terrible crimes?

I join the right hon. Gentleman in his condemnation of the bombings. Considerable efforts are being made to give advice, support and guidance and to try to reduce risks in areas deemed vulnerable. However, as long as the people who committed these evil acts and others like them are at large, we cannot eliminate risk. We must be on our guard and we must be vigilant, but, at the same time, we must not panic and allow those people to achieve their aim of the disruption and dislocation of the communities in which they are carrying out their evil deeds.

As to the existing law on incitement, under the Public Order Act 1986, prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred require the agreement of the Attorney-General. My recollection is that about 45 prosecutions were authorised in the last period for which statistics are available. I have seen no evidence that there is a particular problem with the law on incitement, but there may be difficulties in the way in which the law is framed when it comes to evidence.

Certainly, there is a problem with incitement on the internet as its authors may come from outside our jurisdiction. We have actively considered that point, not least in the context of the G7-G8 agenda on the fight against organised and international crime.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the great fear and concern that the two nail bomb attacks have provoked in black, Asian and Jewish communities? He will know that in addition to having one of the largest black communities in the country, my constituency has one of the largest, and oldest, Jewish communities. Is he aware that people up and down the country, whether in Bradford, Birmingham, Hackney or Willesden—black and Asian people—are wondering whether their community will be next? Is he aware of how much those communities welcome his strong stand on those outrageous attacks?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I am aware of the great fear in black, Asian and Jewish communities. It is particularly poignant that there have been repeated waves of immigration in the Brick lane area. Indeed, a building there was first a church, was then a synagogue and is now a mosque, illustrating the multiracial, multicultural nature of society in the area. We are doing everything that we can to minimise the risk to communities and to give people advice, support and guidance. However, as I said, we must remain very much on our guard as long as such people remain at large.

All terrorism is vile. Is it not the case that it needs to be deterred with exemplary non-remissible sentences? Were not the outrages at Brixton and Brick lane particularly despicable not merely because of the terrible injuries that they caused, but because of the deliberate intent to provoke prolonged intra-communal strife in this country? Will the Home Secretary look again at the answer that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on police resources, as Conservative Members have long been making representations to the Home Office about the fact that police manpower has gone down in the capital under this Administration and needs to be increased significantly?

I regret the fact that the Opposition have decided to use this occasion to make points about police resources, which I do not believe are justified. Since the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the hon. Gentleman have raised the matter, it is a matter of record that the strength of the Metropolitan police declined by 2,000 between 1992 and 1998 in a period for which the Conservative party was responsible. As I have made clear to the House, for this year, in the first period for which this Government have followed their own public spending plans, the Metropolitan police commissioner has told me that he is satisfied that police numbers will remain as they were last year, within the range of plus or minus 75. Resources have been substantially increased to the Metropolitan police service and are, in my judgment, entirely adequate for the task.

On the type of sentences that the perpetrators of this sort of violence may receive from the courts, obviously I cannot anticipate any trial or conviction, but the courts have always regarded such outrageous acts of indiscriminate violence extremely seriously and have ensured sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime.

On the motives of the bombers, the hon. Gentleman said that there was a deliberate intent to provoke intra-communal violence. I think that he is right about that and I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to some of the community leaders who recognised that from the outset and who have not fallen into that trap. I mention two by name. Mike Franklin and Arlene Mundle, who are respectively the chair and vice-chair of the Lambeth community police consultative group, acted with great restraint, dignity and responsibility when the first outrage took place in Brixton just over a week ago.

I welcome the Home Secretary's firm statement and would highlight the steady and calm response of the communities in the areas affected by those wicked and cowardly outrages. I mention in particular the great sense of responsibility of the community leadership in Lambeth—the area that I know best—which my right hon. Friend mentioned. He was right to single out the very responsible and dignified response and role played by the Lambeth community police consultative group and, in particular, Mike Franklin and Arlene Mundle. That view and admiration is shared by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). Does my right hon. Friend agree that that strength of community leadership is essential in such circumstances? Does he also agree that strengthening the co-operation between the community and the police is equally essential if communities are to get through and to withstand the sort of outrage experienced in Lambeth and Bethnal Green?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He knows Lambeth well, not least as a former councillor for the area. As I know, as a resident of Lambeth for 20 years, one thing that has been very much to the good in recent years has been the way in which relations between the police and the community in the area have greatly improved since the terrible period in the early 1980s. The strength and resilience of a relationship are truly tested only when such incidents occur. It is tested not in committee rooms, but in real situations. The police and the community passed that test in an exemplary way, and I commend them all.

The Home Secretary will know that the whole House condemns these terrible acts. Can he confirm reports that emerged over the weekend that peers of Jewish, black and Asian origin have recently received death threats and racist letters? Does he believe that there is any connection between that and the two recent events in London? To what extent does he think that there might be a conspiracy rather than a small, evil cell operating in London?

I cannot give any information about whether peers have received death threats. None has come to my attention. It is perfectly possible that peers, like Members of this House, have received revolting racist mail. I am afraid that that happens and it is to be deeply condemned when it does. It is impossible to put a precise figure on the number of people involved in extremist violent right-wing organisations, but I emphasise that all the evidence suggests that the numbers are very, very small indeed and diminishing, as they have done over the years. We must be vigilant because such people, however few in number, plainly have a capacity to commit great violence; it was fortuitous and providential that no one was killed in either outrage. We should not dignify their outrages by suggesting that they are anything other than a mindless and tiny band of evil people.

These bombings are extreme acts of cowardice perpetrated by a minority. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for mentioning other communities in fear, such as mine in Bradford. Fear will not win. The communities will be united in opposing all forms of racism, as we have done in Bradford over many years. Will he consider the activities of groups such as Combat 18? West Yorkshire police have been informed about many of the activities of this minority, but will he ensure that such information is acted on as quickly possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend, particularly in respect of the community in Bradford. Wherever groups such as Combat 18 come to the notice of the authorities, they are the subject of study. That gives me an opportunity to repeat that while the anti-terrorist branch is bringing its extensive professional skills to bear on the Brick lane and Brixton investigations, the perpetrators are much more likely to be apprehended if information about those who are likely to have committed these acts is provided by members of the public. I repeat my appeal, as the Commissioner has done, that any people with any information about neighbours, people at work, or people they know who appear likely to be involved in such organisations should tell the police. If they do not wish to give their identities to the police, they should phone the Crimestoppers number, which is 0800 555 111.

I join the Home Secretary in condemning these appalling crimes and, as a former vice-chairman of the Lambeth police community consultative group, in his praise of that group and the remarkable change that it has brought about in intercommunity relations in Lambeth in the 10 years since I was involved in it. Does he agree that it is important in dealing with such problems to isolate those who perpetrate such crimes? The best way to do that is to create a climate in which even people of the community involved who might sometimes be tempted towards the perpetrators' views, in their awareness of the hideous consequences, help to isolate them and provide the information that may lead to their arrest. It is important to categorise their activities as the criminal acts that they are and not to draw wider conclusions, which is often tempting and thereby starts to create the intra-communal tensions that 1 am certain are exactly what these people seek.

As a former vice-chairman of the Lambeth police community consultative group, the hon. Gentleman brings to bear in his remarks considerable experience of policing in the inner city. I am pleased that he endorses what I have said, and what others have said, about the great change—a most optimistic change—that has occurred in police-community relations in Brixton during the past decade. He is right to say that people who perpetrate these crimes need to be isolated; they should not be dignified with any ideological or political label. They are criminals and terrorists first and last.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about the ease with which publicity is gained by certain right-wing groups on the back of the events that have occurred during the past two weeks? Is he concerned that the media are too willing to name groups with no evidence that they are involved in such crimes? I am not suggesting that there should be any form of censorship, but does my right hon. Friend think that there should be some voluntary restraint on the part of the media? Does he share my concern that the ease with which such groups have obtained publicity could encourage a deranged individual or group to commit further crimes and seek similar notoriety because they are members of an organisation, rather than merely violent criminals?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. However, there is a fine balance to be struck and a fine line to be drawn—both for the media and for Ministers—between not giving those individuals the oxygen of publicity, while recognising that they have committed outrages and inflicted considerable violence. The public have a right to know about that and to understand the concern that, for example, the Government and Members of Parliament have about such matters.

I have no complaint about the way in which the media have handled these matters. In relation to the balance to which I referred, one of the reasons that the police held back before they concluded that the bombings were racist crimes was precisely that they did not wish to give unjustified publicity to the right-wing extremist groups which—it now appears—committed those crimes. Happily, I do not think that anyone has criticised the police for holding back their judgment until they were reasonably certain that the crimes were racist. For similar reasons, when the Brixton outrage took place, after discussions with the Commissioner, I decided that it would not be appropriate for me to visit the area—as I pointed out to the House earlier. That was not because I was not concerned—indeed, I was extremely concerned—but to ensure that we calibrated the response to meet the public's concerns, and not the perpetrators' appetite for gratuitous publicity.

The Home Secretary will be aware of the racist filth that feeds organisations involved in such crimes. I hope that he shares my appreciation for the work of Gerry Gable and Searchlight magazine in bringing to public attention the producers of that material. The right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned taking action against racist material on the internet. As a priority, will he also investigate the producers and distributors of CDs of racist music, and the organisers of racist music concerts? A recent report in Searchlight showed that that music is a key component in the funding of organisations such as Combat 18, so that they can carry out crimes.

I pay my own tribute to Searchlight and its editor for the phenomenal work that they have done over the years in exposing racists and other extremists. As for the producers of racist CDs, they are subject to the law—as are other publishers. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence about that matter, I should be happy to receive it.

The Home Secretary has visited my constituency on several occasions and is aware that we have one of the largest Sikh communities in the country. Indeed, yesterday at the Royal Albert hall, he was entertained by children from the Guru Nanak Sikh college in my constituency. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the community is anxious about being a soft target. I ask him to consider urgently applications for additional resources for closed circuit television cameras to cover our town centre and other vulnerable areas, so that we can at least increase our vigilance, as he urges us to do.

I have indeed visited my hon. Friend's constituency on many occasions; as he says, it contains one of the largest Sikh communities in the country. One event that emphasises the progress that we in this country have made in community and race relations was yesterday's wonderful celebration at the Royal Albert hall, attended by His Royal Highness Prince Charles, when 5,000 Sikhs came together to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the 10th Guru Gobind Singh. It was a wonderful, ecumenical and multi-party celebration that showed the strength, not only of the Sikh community, but of the determination of all our communities to make this country a truly multiracial society.

On the question of soft targets, I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I should have mentioned in my answer to an earlier question that £400 million is now available through crime reduction programmes for measures such as targeted policing; of that sum, £170 million is principally for closed circuit television schemes. I shall certainly ensure that applications from areas that are at risk of racist violence are carefully considered.

The Home Secretary will be aware that hon. Members who represent multicultural communities are detecting enormous concern among ordinary people about the danger and about threats to their way of life, which is what the explosions at Brixton and Brick lane amounted to. Is he satisfied that the police have sufficient knowledge or intelligence about the activities of far-right racist organisations in this country? What connections have the police uncovered between organisations in this country and those in continental Europe, where, tragically, the sort of atrocities seen for the past two weekends in London are more commonplace? The connection is there to be seen; is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the police are able to deal with that?

In this as in other respects, I am satisfied as to the professionalism and assiduity of the police and the intelligence agencies. As can be seen from Irish terrorism, when terrorist groups are highly organised, even extensive intelligence coverage of those groups cannot provide a guarantee against the possibility that they will commit terrorist outrages. With the best will in the world, whatever the extent of the coverage by police and intelligence agencies of such extremist right-wing groups, the risk remains that members of those groups will continue to perpetrate violence for as long as they remain at large. That is why the investigation led by the anti-terrorist branch is so important, and why the Commissioner will ensure that nothing is left undone until the perpetrators of the violence are brought to justice.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the perpetrators of the bombings are no more and no less than mindless, murderous thugs; and that to attribute some sort of political dimension to their crime, for example, by calling it a backlash to the Lawrence inquiry, is entirely wrong—at best naive and at worst perverse? Can he assure me that communities such as the one represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and me, which are less well known as significant centres of ethnic communities, are being made as alert and are being as well looked after by the Metropolitan police as more well-known areas such as Brick lane and Brixton? Outer London suburbs must not be forgotten, for they too contain significant ethnic communities.

My hon. Friend is right. There are significant black and Asian communities throughout this country—in inner London, outer London, almost all of our major cities and many of our towns and rural areas—and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The police in the Metropolitan area and outside are applying themselves with great vigour to giving advice and guidance to communities about how best they can minimise the risk. There is no way in which risk can be entirely avoided as long as there are mindless, murderous thugs who are intent on planting further bombs. That emphasises the need, first, for proper information—the best available—to be given to the police; and, secondly, for continued vigilance to be maintained.

Following the Prime Minister's statement earlier this afternoon, I am sure that I have the support of the whole House in beginning this debate on defence equipment by paying tribute to our service men and women who are currently deployed on NATO operations in the Balkans. They are, once again, earning not only our admiration, but that of the whole world for their dedication, courage and professionalism. The fact that so many of our young service men and women are deployed on a variety of missions in the Balkans brings home to us, yet again, how important it is to ensure that they are provided with the equipment they need to do the jobs that we ask of them— we take that responsibility very seriously.

A recurring feature of debates about defence equipment has tended to be long, but by no means comprehensive, lists of new equipment that we are buying or are considering buying. That is natural, as is the considerable concern expressed by individual Members of Parliament about programmes that are important to workers or companies in their constituencies. I hope to address today some of the most topical and significant of those programmes.

However, I will also outline some of the steps that we have taken to improve the process by which we supply our front-line forces with the tools that they need to do their job. This must be a seamless process from cradle to grave. It includes not only specifying and purchasing equipment from manufacturers, but maintaining and managing that equipment throughout its life. In parallel, we are also reforming the way in which we run our construction projects and services, on which we spend some £1.5 billion a year. We are drawing heavily on the recommendations made by Sir John Egan in his "Rethinking Construction" report, and taking forward the initiative led by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We intend that the Ministry of Defence will be clearly recognised as a best-practice client in construction.

The theme that unites all those reforms is that we identify best practice in Government or the private sector, here or overseas, and work it into an acquisition process that delivers solutions to defence requirements faster, more cheaply and better. We started that process in opposition and, in consultation with industry and trade unions, and with good consultancy support, we developed those ideas and carried them through into a blueprint for modernisation in the strategic defence review. It is yet another item on our agenda for modernising government, which will deliver more responsive and effective public services for Britain in the new millennium.

The SDR involved a fundamental reappraisal of our defence roles, re-evaluating from first principles what we will require from our armed forces in the new millennium. The outcome was a comprehensive and coherent account of our plans for the future capabilities of the armed forces.

However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when introducing the debate on the strategic defence review last autumn:

"it is not enough to set the right course. What really matters is to see that course through."—[Official Report, 19 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 971.]

In that context, I start by focusing on smart procurement. One of the key differences between this and previous attempts to reform defence procurement—which we have drawn on freely—has been the creation of an implementation team to drive the changes through. That has been mirrored in defence logistics and the SDR as a whole.

When we announced the outcome of the review to the House last July—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) wish to intervene? What a shame—I was preparing an excellent riposte.

On the issue of smart procurement, will the Minister confirm that the anticipated savings over the three years of SDR are £2 billion? Are the Government on target to make those savings?

Later in my speech, I will reveal how well we are on target to make those savings—indeed, we hope to exceed that figure.

When we announced the outcome of the review to the House last July, we promised to modernise defence by making a number of significant improvements in the way in which we do business. We emphasised our determination to obtain maximum value from every pound of taxpayers' money that is spent on defence. That means equipping, training and supporting the armed forces as cost-effectively as possible.

The reforms launched by the smart procurement initiative—a key element in our review—were long overdue. Members on all sides of the House have become tired of hearing in recent years of cost overruns and delays on major defence projects, leading to waste for the taxpayer and depriving our armed forces of the equipment that they need.

Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that every procurement programme went badly. For example, the recent acquisition of a capability to launch cruise missiles from our fleet submarines has been a notable success. The contract was let in 1995; a demanding timetable was set down, and successful test firings took place in November 1998, on the exact day that had been specified three years earlier. The House will know that HMS Splendid has been employing the system operationally over the past few weeks in support of operations in the Balkans.

Will the Minister state how many British cruise missiles have been fired in the current conflict over Kosovo, and whether it is likely that we shall have to purchase more such missiles?

No, for reasons that I suspect my hon. Friend and others will understand, I shall not state how many cruise missiles have been fired.

I would not wish to suggest that the defence procurement task is easy. Many of the projects in our equipment programme are at the leading edge of current technology. They often involve complex and hard-fought competitions between some of the world's largest companies. In some cases, their costs run into billions of pounds. That makes us all the more determined to achieve the goals of the smart procurement initiative.

We examined how, over recent years, industry had changed the way in which it managed its relationships with suppliers. We recognised the advantages of partnership over confrontation which, with an atmosphere of greater transparency and trust, we hope will deliver improved performance and shared benefits.

That means that there will be more investment in the early stages of projects, with trade—offs between military requirements, time and costs, to enable more rapid, less risky development. Projects will be managed by integrated project teams—IPTs—with an empowered team leader. Those teams will include all stakeholders, including industry, except during competitive phases. We anticipate that some team leaders will be appointed from industry, through open competition. There will be more use of partnering arrangements with the private sector, including the private finance initiative. We shall exploit new procurement techniques, including incremental acquisition.

Clearly, a new organisation was required to implement such a radical programme of change. That will mean a single customer for the equipment programme in MOD headquarters, bringing together the staff who identify new equipment requirements and those who allocate resources for them. IPTs will bring together all the skills necessary for the successful running of a project. Those teams will be led by an empowered team leader with the authority to make trade-offs against performance, cost and time, within boundaries set by the customer. Other key features include more investment in the early stages of projects and a flexible, streamlined and modern approach to the running of the procurement organisation.

We have achieved a great deal since last summer towards reaching the goals of smart procurement. On 1 April, on schedule, we launched the Defence Procurement Agency. We have piloted the new processes and structures on 10 projects. We have formed integrated project teams made up of specialists responsible for every aspect of acquisition activity, operational requirements, scientific analysis, procurement contracts, finance and integrated logistics. I stress that those teams will have representation from industry except during competitions.

As a result of the pilots, we know that we are on track to deliver the £2 billion of savings over 10 years which we promised would be achieved through smart procurement.

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of scientific analysis, will he tell the House what scientists say about the use of depleted uranium in armour-piercing shells?

That is not part of the acquisition process and is not a matter for those teams, but I understand that our scientists have published a paper on the use of depleted uranium which is in the public domain. If my hon. Friend has any questions arising from that, I am sure that our people would be more than happy to reply.

The IPTs have also identified significant opportunities to get equipment into service faster, or—for equipment already in service—to improve its availability and reliability. For example, the type 23 frigate IPT is looking to reduce the length of an upgrade programme by about 30 per cent. The VC 10 IPT has already identified initiatives to achieve a 10 per cent. increase in serviceability.

During April, we have launched the first wave of IPTs covering another 23 projects or groups of projects in the Defence Procurement Agency and in the new Defence Logistics Organisation. Other projects will migrate to that new structure over the coming year in two further waves, with about 150 teams forming in all—about 90 in the Defence Procurement Agency and 60 in the Defence Logistics Organisation. Given the success of the pilots, we can expect further significant savings, faster procurement and improved availability.

Smart procurement is also about a new relationship with our suppliers. Industry's involvement at an early stage will encourage its participation in the key process of trading off time, performance and whole-life costs. It will help us to produce solutions to military requirements that are better tuned to industrial and technological realities, so that we do not pay an unnecessary premium or introduce unmanageable risk to achieve the last small bit of performance.

Let me clarify what I mean by "our suppliers". There is understandable concern among small and medium-sized companies that this process will involve the large project integrators, but not them. On the contrary, we believe that the real benefits of smart procurement will come only if there is real partnership throughout the supply chain. We shall make that very clear to industry because we recognise the huge contribution that small and medium enterprises make to the competence of our defence industry, and to the whole economy.

Competition will remain at the heart of our strategy to obtain best value for money, but it will be used flexibly. Our aim is to foster an enhanced partnership with industry, reduce risk, encourage innovation and increase the competitiveness of a defence industry that generates about £5 billion in export orders for the United Kingdom each year, and last year achieved 26 per cent. of world exports in that field. Such a programme is a great opportunity for the British defence industry and for its highly skilled work force, on whom it depends.

However, smart procurement is also about being more willing to accept that not every programme that we initiate will progress as planned—and being more willing to change our plans and approach, if that is what success requires, before making the major financial commitment to new projects.

In that context, many hon. Members will be aware of our increasing concerns over the progress of a programme that we inherited, the common new generation frigate programme—a major collaborative project with France and Italy. The project comprises two elements: a medium-range air defence system known as the principal anti-air-missile system—PAAMS—and the warship on which to deploy it, known as Horizon.

The PAAMS project, in which Matra-BAe Dynamics is a key industrial partner, has made excellent progress. Detailed proposals have now been received from industry and, subject to national approval processes by the three nations concerned, we have decided with our partners to move quickly to place the contract for the development of PAAMS.

However, the partners have now concluded, in light of the industrial proposals that we have received, that it would not be cost-effective to pursue a single prime contract for the warship. The three nations will, however, continue to build on the tri-national project work already carried out, and will pursue opportunities for co-operative procurement in equipping those vessels.

The hon. Gentleman is making an announcement of immense industrial importance because he is saying that the tri-national Horizon programme has essentially folded, although the missile system for a future vessel could be common. Has he considered the employment aspect of that? Is he now hopeful that British yards—in pursuing, I presume, a national solution to build the hull and related systems—will have a greater opportunity for work in this country? From the outset, work share was an inherent difficulty in the programme.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for that announcement, although we have always believed that British warships would be built in British yards. I accept that one part of the programme made much greater progress than the other. That has enabled us to initial the PAAMS part of the programme. On the Horizon side—the ship side—we are still building on the work that was undertaken. We shall do so within national programmes, but still working on the tri-national project work and reaping the benefit of the work that has been undertaken on that.

Perhaps I should begin by apologising for not being present when the Minister began his speech. I was engaged elsewhere. As has just been said, the Minister has made an announcement of considerable importance. Following the failure of the NATO frigate for the 1990s programme, two consecutive programmes designed to produce common procurement for naval vessels have not been successful. Will the Minister say a little more about what he means by national use of existing work? Are we talking about a new design or an adaptation of the Horizon design in so far as that had been progressed?

We are waiting for industry to respond to invitations to come back with proposals to construct the ships to carry the extremely effective PAAMS equipment. We inherited the programme, with the difficulties that have become clear. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will not know about this issue because he was not a Member in the previous Parliament, but many of us will recall the debates that took place. We believe, in agreement with our partners in France and Italy, that we have arrived at an effective and positive resolution of the difficulties, and one that we are able to take forward.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—

rose—

rose—

I shall return to the point in a moment.

As my right hon. Friend has commented:

"We now have a very good result for the navies and industries of the three nations, and for European defence. The PAAMS missile system will provide a powerful air defence capability for the Royal Navy which will be simply the best in the world and will be effective well into the next century. The advanced technology and the employment which this multi-billion pound project will provide will help to keep Britain in the front rank of the aerospace and the electronics industry."

The Minister talks about a successful outcome, but it is not. It is not a successful outcome for future multinational projects and it is disappointing. It would be interesting if the Minister were to go into a little more of his reasoning and explain why he thinks that collaboration has been successful on the anti-air-missile project, but not on the ship. One would think that in some ways, building a ship was rather easier than building an anti-air-missile system. Why does the Minister think that collaboration has been successful on one aspect of the project and not on the other, and what lessons are there to learn for future potential multinational projects?

The key lesson to be learned is that joint collaboration requires joint work on all sides. That ties in very much with the theme that I was developing earlier. The essence of modern procurement requires a good working relationship between the customer and the supplier. I think that the working relationship on the supplier side on the PAAMS project was possibly much better than on the shipbuilding side. There are lessons to be learned and we shall be drawing on them in the near future when considering how we can be more effective on multinational procurement.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we estimate that about 40 per cent. of our future equipment orders will be placed on a collaborative basis. We need to draw lessons from failures and from successes in deciding how we proceed with future programmes. However, we have managed to achieve an effective result that is good news for the Royal Navy, and we shall be able to move forward with the programme.

What is the expected in-service date of the ships and the missiles? Is there any chance of the missiles arriving before the ships?

Conservative Members were responsible for the early stages of the programme. They resolutely refused to listen in debate after debate when questions were raised to the effect that the programme was going wrong, and took no action. We have taken over the programme and have achieved an effective resolution of it, so I find it extraordinary that they want to make such a meal of the matter. I should have thought that Conservative Members, as a matter of decency, would want to pass this by and move on to some other area—they were absolutely responsible. I anticipate that we shall try to build and equip the boats at the same time, and we are looking at an in-service date of towards 2006.

I am sorry to press the Minister, but the announcement has considerable significance. What are the consequences for capability in the meantime? The vessel was designed to replace the type 42s. Will we have to stretch the lives of some of the type 42s; if so, with what consequences for capability?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right—we will have to stretch some of the operations of existing vessels. That is precisely the problem that we inherited and we have managed to get it sorted out. I should have thought that Conservative Members would be congratulating us on that and, as a matter of decency, they should be reticent about their role.

I want to leave the House in no doubt that we remain fully committed to the principles and practice of collaboration, which is increasingly important in our forward equipment programme. Our membership, with France, Germany and Italy, of the joint equipment organisation known as OCCAR presents a real opportunity to establish improved collaborative practices that deliver value for money.

Hon. Members will know that we and our partners have placed the counter battery radar programme, known as COBRA, under the supervision of OCCAR. We shall continue to pursue common objectives in OCCAR with our partners.

The Minister has raised the question of collaborative projects. Does smart procurement include security of supply? I declare my constituency interest in Royal Ordnance, but I also make a serious national point. If there is one lesson to draw from the present events in the Balkans, which follow the Gulf war and the Falklands war, it is how different each of those actions was, that our partners in each were totally different and that it is impossible to predict which countries could be considered to be a certain, secure and willing source of supply in any future difficulty that we might face. In respect of munitions and the point that has been made about Royal Ordnance, what consideration has been given to ensuring that we have not only security of supply, but security of resupply, if we need to reorder during an emergency?

As the right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience, resupply in such circumstances is nearly always from stock rather than from reproduction. He will know from his own time in office that that was certainly the case within the time scales of nearly all the operations that we have experienced. He will also recognise that there has been a considerable reduction in demand for munitions—not only in the United Kingdom, but right across the world.

That reduction is due partly to the reduced size of the armed forces, but also to improved training techniques. For example, there is greater use of simulation. At peak, we were ordering £300 million of munitions; now we order £80 million—worth. Our experience has been replicated and munitions firms across Europe—and, indeed, across the world—face a similar situation. Therefore, there will be a greater degree of international rationalisation between companies and between countries.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to questions of security and assurance of supply. Inevitably, the restructuring in the industry cannot involve only the companies, although they will play a prime and initiating role in the process. Governments must also be involved in the equation so that effective rationalisation, which is inevitable given the changing pattern of the industry, is combined with considerable security and assurance in this respect. I think that I have described the situation fairly accurately to the right hon. Gentleman and he will be aware of it from his experience.

When the Minister says "assurance", is he relying on assurances by Governments that, all things being equal, they will guarantee that their firms will supply to meet our requirements? As he knows, I had the experience in the Gulf war of a fellow NATO country that declined to supply us with the ammunition that we requested because it did not support the action being taken to liberate Kuwait. If we are talking about governmental assurances, the Minister might find that, in certain circumstances, overriding national interest in the country concerned will result in its assurance not being honoured.

I should point out that that assurance is also mutual and many of those countries will also be dependent on us. That is a further part of the equation. I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands that the changing nature of the industry is forcing all countries to look at a greater degree of international rationalisation and interdependence.

I have spoken in some detail about our smart procurement initiative. However, delivering effective equipment to the front line is not just about buying new kit; it also means ensuring that equipment is well-maintained and reliable. It means ensuring that equipment is in the right place at the right time, together with the ammunition, spares and technical back-up needed to support it. We need a taut, efficient and responsive supply chain that stretches, as they say, from factory to foxhole.

That means adopting a truly "whole-life" approach to managing our equipment. Those responsible for procurement must work closely with those responsible for supporting it. We must ensure that the whole-life costs of equipment are properly considered when procurement decisions are taken. We also need to be able to make better-informed decisions about technology insertion to keep systems current, and about spares and maintenance to keep them fit to fight.

We have seen a revolution in the way that industry manages its own supply chains and in the capability of logistics businesses in the private sector. In the automotive industry, for example, the improved organisation of the supply chain has been the engine of tremendous gains in productivity. The logistics industry has seen a similar transformation. Many of those businesses need to have a global reach, just as our armed forces do. We have looked long and hard at world-class best practice and we are bringing the lessons learned to bear on our own organisation.

What I am talking about is no less than a revolution in defence logistics. The reforms lie at the heart of our modernising programme and their success is fundamental to the success of the strategic defence review overall.

The process will be greatly facilitated by the appointment, at the start of this month, of General Sir Sam Cowan as chief of defence logistics to head the new Defence Logistics Organisation. However, the CDL's job is not simply about ensuring that whole-life costs inform our procurement decisions, important though that is. It is also about delivering support to the front line in the most cost-effective manner.

Much has been achieved in recent years, with better rationalisation and co-operation between the services' logistics areas. I pay tribute to the logistics staffs for what has been achieved. However, the creation of a CDL represents a step change. The Defence Logistics Organisation that he heads brings together the organisations of the Chief of Fleet Support, the Quartermaster General and the Air Member for Logistics into a single entity. It will be the largest joint organisation in defence, with some 41,000 staff and a budget of nearly £5 billion a year.

The task of reorganisation is enormous and will not be completed overnight. It is being tackled in two phases. Phase 1, completed on 1 April, was to create the essential elements of the core headquarters. That has enabled the CDL to assume budgetary and management control of the current logistics areas, and to plan the change management task necessary to achieve phase 2.

The time scale has also seen the creation of three new defence-wide support organisations: the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, the launch of which I had the pleasure of attending on 7 April; the Defence Transport and Movement Agency; and the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency.

The DLO will look to harmonise systems and achieve greater efficiency by adoption of best practice across the whole area. A key strand will be the integration of similar systems. That, in turn, will provide the opportunity for strategic management of all logistics support. In short, it will achieve better, more effective support through the application of sensible processes and common practices. That will be a change of the greatest magnitude.

We shall, however, retain the single service logistics units at the front line. That decision recognises the particular nature and characteristics of single service operations at sea, on land or in the air. The challenge is to blend logistics support seamlessly into the front line.

We also need to improve the procurement of logistics support to the front line. That is a major task, and smart procurement is again very relevant. We recognise the wealth of expertise and experience in industry in procuring and managing logistics. We shall harness those skills in our project teams. We shall look to partnering approaches, where appropriate, to ensure the most cost-effective delivery of logistics support. We also need to ensure that much better use is made of advanced information technology.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in the middle of his explanation of logistics matters. Before he concludes, will he help me on the issue of future procurement? Have he and his colleagues had the opportunity to reflect on the potential value to our armed services of the airborne stand-off radar? Does he have any information on the prospects for that procurement? Can he assure the House that he will take fully into account the value of the UK-developed Racal radar system in circumstances such as Kosovo, as it is able to identify potential targets with greater precision?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall come on to individual equipment programmes, but it is right that hon. Members should intervene in support of the companies and work forces in their constituencies, and the excellent work that many of those companies are undertaking.

Before I deal with equipment, I shall return to the logistics side. Our stockholdings will need to be reviewed further. The aim will be to move towards a demand-led system, based on the assumption that stocks should be held only when they cannot be regenerated within the readiness time of the forces that they support. Accordingly, our target is to reduce the book value of non-munitions holdings by £2.2 billion by April 2001; and we further intend to rationalise our stock procurement to achieve savings of £130 million a year from 2001–02 onwards. For that, we need to develop better forecasting techniques, and if we are to reduce stocks safely, we require improved lead times from industry that match our readiness needs.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) will be pleased to know that I shall now turn to some of the individual programmes that I spoke about earlier. Each of the services can look forward to vastly improved equipment capabilities as the plans we laid out in the SDR are brought to fruition. For the Royal Navy, the valuable flexibility offered by aircraft carriers has recently been demonstrated by the deployment of HMS Invincible from the Gulf to the Adriatic. Carriers allow us to project military force rapidly and over long distances. The strategic defence review concluded that we should replace the current generation of carriers and their aircraft in about 2012. It also concluded that the future carrier force should comprise two larger carriers. Modern ship upkeep practice means that there will not be lengthy refit periods for these vessels, as is the current practice, and we should therefore be able to achieve the same availability from these two vessels as we do from the current three.

We have already issued invitations to tender for the assessment phase of the future carrier programme in January to six potential prime contractors. We expect to place a contract with up to three companies in the autumn, and the ships will be built and outfitted in the United Kingdom. Contrary to the suggestions we have heard previously from Opposition Members, the programme is running to schedule and with the full commitment of the Government.

The new carriers are a key element of our future defence plans. We are encouraging the sensible use of the latest technologies and innovative ideas to ensure that carriers are acquired on time and to cost. Future carriers will be capable of deploying air power in the form of the joint Royal Navy-Royal Air Force future carrier-borne aircraft. This new aircraft will fulfil a wide range of military tasks. A variant of the US joint strike fighter remains a strong contender, but other options are also being considered, such as a naval variant of Eurofighter, Rafale, the Fl 8E/F and an upgraded Harrier.

We are pressing ahead with plans to triple our sealift capability through the acquisition of additional roll on/roll off vessels for the joint rapid reaction forces. In the meantime, our strategic sealift requirements will continue to be met by the chartering of Royal Fleet Auxiliary Sea Crusader and RFA Sea Centurion, which are proving to be tremendous assets. Centurion continues to transport heavy equipment in support of operations in the Balkans. The provision of a six-ship ro-ro capability will significantly improve Britain's ability to move its forces rapidly to deal with crises anywhere in the world.

On 31 March, we issued an invitation to tender to four companies seeking bids to provide those services. The four companies are Novomar, the Maersk Company, Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd. and the Sealion Consortium, which includes Kvaerner Govan. The House will be aware of the difficulties the Govan shipyard faces in the wake of the announcement by Kvaerner that it is to dispose of its shipbuilding interests. We are, therefore, glad to have been able to shortlist their consortium for the sealift competition. We are, of course, co-operating with the task force and keeping in close touch with the Scottish Office, to see if there are ways in which we might assist.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested in what the Minister has said about Kvaerner Govan. The Govan yard built the hull for HMS Ocean, and is one of the few shipyards in the United Kingdom capable of building the hull for a big aircraft carrier.

Can the Minister tell us whether Swan Hunter on the Tyne is back in the business of receiving naval requests for tender? Is it to be considered, or are we down to Barrow and Harland and Wolff if Kvaerner is not bought by a company that wants to proceed in naval shipbuilding?

The hon. Gentleman should not forget Cammell Laird in Birkenhead. Those are the yards that are the main contenders; then there are the companies that have been invited to tender for the role as prime contractor—systems-integrating, weapons-integrating companies. There is, in fact, quite robust competition, as a considerable number of yards are potential builders of the carriers.

What about Swan Hunter?

As far as I am aware, Swan Hunter is a potential bidder, but the companies concerned will have to decide whether they wish to upgrade their yards and take part in the competition, given that they have the basic capability.

Let me now deal with the Army side. The SDR placed great emphasis on our information, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability, known as ISTAR. That capability is needed to provide the fast, detailed, accurate intelligence that is essential for rapid decision making in complex circumstances.

The competition for the airborne stand-off radar contract—mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—is now in its closing stages. As I think we all know, the fight for that contract has been conducted intensively by three determined bidders. United States prime contractors have been prominent, but scores of capable British companies have been involved with the three consortiums. The decision is receiving close ministerial attention and, as some hon. Members may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave each consortium an opportunity to present its proposals to him personally last week.

I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that he has not drowned in his glass of water.

About four weeks ago, during the business slot on the "Today" programme, a representative of the Raytheon corporation clearly intimated that the corporation thought that it had won the ASTOR contract. In that context, it was discussing the potential creation of additional defence jobs in Belfast. Did the Minister receive any reports of that broadcast, and Raytheon's assertion of its position? If so, did he investigate the source of the stories, and can he assure me that Raytheon was speculating?