Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but will she kindly read the Standing Orders about ministerial Statements at Question Time?

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, have the Government estimated for how long British forces are expected to stay in Iraq? If so, can the Minister give the House that estimate?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as US Ambassador Bremmer has said of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, we will stay as long as necessary and leave as soon as possible.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, although I rather agree with the noble Baroness that the medium-term prospect in Iraq is not nearly as bad as some pessimists and many newspaper reports insist on depicting, she will recall the Prime Minister saying at the time of the invasion that we needed,


    "every bit as . . . well . . . as a military plan".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/03; col. 36.]

Many of us are simply asking, "Where is that plan?".

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the first part of his question. I remind him that an enormous amount of humanitarian and reconstruction work is going on. The DfID budget provides 198 million of reconstruction and humanitarian aid. We know from Questions answered by my noble friend in the House last week that hospitals are now functioning, schools are opening and, in response to electricity and oil supplies being targeted by terrorists, an estimated 10,000 Iraqis are being trained to guard those installations.

16 Sept 2003 : Column 763

European Security Strategy

3 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What progress they are making towards fulfilment of their shared commitment, contained in the conclusions of the Thessaloniki European Council, that the draft European security strategy shall be "subject to public debate".

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the draft European security strategy is a public document available on the EU's website. A copy of the draft is in the Library of the House. Public debates will be taken forward by three seminars, to be held in Rome, Paris and Stockholm in September and October. Representatives from the academic community, non-governmental organisations and other international organisations, as well as governments, have been invited to participate in the seminars.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that limited reply. I note that no seminar is planned in London. I note also that the Thessaloniki European Council communique committed member governments to promote a public debate. Is she aware that other national parliaments have received copies of the document from their government and have debated it? The Bundestag had a debate the other week. Why have the British Government been so hesitant to circulate the paper to any of those who might be interested? The Foreign Office very kindly sent me a letter about it in July. It said that it had attached a copy of the paper and then did not do so. That must have been an accident.

Given that the paper says a number of things that Her Majesty's Government strongly favour, and that need to be discussed by other governments who will find it rather more difficult, why are they apparently so determined not to have it discussed or to encourage their own Parliament to discuss it?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take my response in good part. I am genuinely pleased that he has raised the issue, as it is undercooked and under-discussed. The reason that I have said that we agreed wholeheartedly with the Thessaloniki European Council's unanimous endorsement of the document is that we are extremely pleased that it is in the public domain—it is on the website and in the Library. If noble Lords wish to have a discussion in this House or in another place, it will be through the usual channels. We would appreciate any comments on the document. The Government welcome the opportunity to discuss the strategy in Parliament. My noble friend the Minister with responsibility for Europe has shared the strategy with the House of Lords European Union Committee.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the Minister agree that two of the most interesting and important aspects of the document are the stress made on the transatlantic

16 Sept 2003 : Column 764

partnership and on the importance of multilateral approaches to world problems? The next time that the United States, led by the Pentagon, wishes to embark on unilateral approaches to international problems, will the Government, unlike last time, bear in mind that those are two important parts of Mr Solana's document?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that very indicative to the document is the strengthening relationship with NATO. As he will know from having studied the document, the reason that it was put forward in the first place was to try to make European Union foreign policy more coherent and more co-operative with those of our international partners.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that certain bodies had been invited—I stress the word "invited"—to attend three meetings for public debate. Can bodies or individuals who have not been invited attend? If they cannot, surely it is not a public debate.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's remark about definitions of public debate. They are perhaps different in EU circles than they are nationally. However, if a member of the public wishes to read the document on the website or in the Library, and wishes to submit comments, they will be forwarded to Dr Solana. I have asked the civil servants about the matter, as I anticipated this question.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, given the recent example of public disaffection in Sweden, and the repeated examples in this country of public sourness towards the European Union and all its works, will the Government please take to heart the fact that the great British public feel cut out of these major debates? I do not wish to impugn the Minister personally, but, frankly, to be told that there are a handful of seminars around Europe and something on a website, speaks to me of the pathetic failure of this and previous governments to engage the British public, who want to be engaged, want to be informed and want to be listened to.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, if we are to break down the alienation that many people feel about Europe, we must try even harder with such public exercises.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Government consider providing an explanatory memorandum on the document to the House of Lords EU Committee to encourage us to respond? Then we might discover what the British Government's response would be.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I will put the noble Lord's request to the Secretary of State.

16 Sept 2003 : Column 765

Diagnostic and Treatment Centres

3.7 p.m.

Earl Howe asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether their plans for diagnostic and treatment centres represent good value for money.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the NHS is bringing on-stream diagnostic and treatment centres throughout the country. Some of those will be run by NHS providers and others by independent sector providers under contract to the NHS. The cost of treatment in the new centres will be based on the standard tariff, which is being introduced progressively. Where we are initially paying slightly more to the independent sector than reference costs, that is to cover the start-up costs so that the new facilities open as quickly as possible to treat more patients and reduce waiting lists.

Earl Howe: My Lords, is not the additional hospital capacity being purchased at an unacceptable price, not just financially, but also in terms of the future stability and effectiveness of the NHS? How can the Government justify the migration of staff from the NHS that looks likely to occur? How can they justify paying an overall price to the independent DTCs that is a good deal higher than the cost incurred in an NHS hospital?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I have explained, the price paid will be exactly the same as that paid to all NHS providers. There is no dual or preferential tariff. The noble Earl said that it was an unacceptable price, but it is unacceptable that so many people are waiting so long on waiting lists. This is a radical response to that. We are investing in independent and NHS treatment centres. Out of the independent sector arrangements we will get 135,000 extra operations and 115,000 operations transferred from the NHS to create even more capacity.

On staffing, no contract will be allowed unless it provides for stability and security of staffing across the NHS area to which it applies.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister mentioned a tariff, but the private sector will receive a market forces premium on top of the NHS equivalent tariff. How can that represent value for money? Moreover, the DTCs will be entitled to take 70 per cent of their staff on secondment from the NHS? Again, how can that be good for the NHS or represent value for money?

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page