| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): Does my right hon. Friend recall the winter of crisis in 1996-97 under the previous Government, when in hospitals in north-west London people were not simply in the waiting room or stacked on trolleys, they were stacked back on to ambulances? Does my right hon. Friend understand the joy and relief that will greet his statement today at the further £250 million to avert a winter crisis in our hospitals? Given the apoplexy among Conservative Members that has greeted his statement today, will he consider bringing forward those payments to meet the pressing need that would appear to be found on the Opposition Benches?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right about what happened to the health service under the previous Administration. The total increase in spending on health as a result of all the measures we are taking will be nearly £32 million per constituency over the next three years. I think that the measure we have announced today, to give £250 million to the health service for the next five months to deal with the winter problems that may and sometimes do arise, shows that the Government want to see the national health service safe in our country. It is simply a pity that the Opposition cannot welcome it.
Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): Can the right hon. Gentleman give a brisk answer to a question to which he has not even given a long-winded one so far? How will raising public borrowing help to reduce interest rates?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should look at what the Bank of England said on this matter. It said that the public spending decisions that we have made were in line with what it was expecting. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the August inflation report, he will see that it says exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): Does the Chancellor recall that in 1991 the then Conservative Government denied responsibility for the recession and blamed it on world economic affairs? Will he contrast that with their attitude now that they are in opposition: that the current slowdown in growth has nothing to do with world economic affairs? Does he believe that they were misleading then or now? Does he think that the bizarre--
Madam Speaker: Order. The Chancellor is responsible only for his economic policies, not for the Opposition's.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): The Chancellor referred earlier to the development of the Welsh economy. Can he confirm that his spending plans
will provide for the Treasury to pay match-funding in the event of the European Union according objective 1 status to west Wales and the valleys?
Mr. Brown: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the comprehensive spending review dealt with those problems. The generous settlement made for public spending for Wales will allow industry, training, education and, of course, all the economic agencies to benefit from public money.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): Does the Chancellor accept that most people represented by Labour Members, and possibly most of those represented by Opposition Members, accept that the purpose of his prudence in preventing overheating of the economy is being delivered in the public expenditure announced today and in previous Budgets? Does my right hon. Friend accept that what was described as wonderland economics is a joy compared with the blunderland economics of the previous Government?
I want to deal with the connection between inventiveness and enterprise and the university challenge fund. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some university representatives are saying that the venture capital organisations in the United Kingdom are slow in taking up the offer of intellectual property? Can he give us an assurance that he will look closely at the transfer of intellectual property so that it does not leave the country but is a boon to the country; while at the same time encouraging venture capital companies to form partnerships with the universities, which are very willing to do so?
Mr. Brown:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a special interest in the matter. In the seminars on productivity that we held with business men and women, which drew on expertise not only from Britain but from across Europe and the United States, it became clear that the venture capital industry could do more in Europe, and Britain, to service high-tech and scientific inventions that may give rise to commercial products. The venture capital industry is doing far more in the United States, and people sometimes doubt whether Britain would have been able to cope with a company such as Microsoft, as the initial venture capital support would not have been available. We have taken some of the measures that we have taken for those reasons.
The university challenge fund is very much over-subscribed, as there was massive interest in it. I hope that we can extend the private partnership, so that there is backing for the public funds that were made available to the tune of £60 million. Our institutes of enterprise, which we are establishing today, will do a great deal to help transfer technology and bring scientific inventions to the
marketplace. I hope that, over the next few months, my hon. Friend will be able to follow developments in those matters.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
I thank the Chancellor for the role that he played in the Industrial Development Board's recent trip to the United States. However, will he consider the views of the CBI Northern Ireland on a possible industrial fuels tax? Northern Ireland's road freight industry is already suffering, and power is much more expensive for people in Northern Ireland. Even an industrial fuel tax applied uniformly across the United Kingdom would place an extra restriction on Northern Ireland industry's ability to compete. Such a situation would create problems for the Chancellor in fulfilling his guarantee to give employment opportunities to the long-term unemployed.
Mr. Brown:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first remarks, and welcomed the opportunity to join some of his colleagues in the United States for the launch of the investment programme for Northern Ireland. I believe that there is a willingness on the part of business in the United States to make new investment in Northern Ireland, particularly since new incentives--including our action on education, training and work--will make it very attractive to invest there. I shall regard the hon. Gentleman's second set of comments, on industrial fuel, as one of the first Budget representations.
Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on holding fast to his spending plans, which are just and will create jobs. The Government intend to be a Government of the left and a Government of enterprise. For regions--such as my own in north-east England--that are facing the sharpest pressures of world markets, can he offer the prospect of any specifically regional programmes of public spending and development, to underpin the great work that he is set upon?
Mr. Brown:
We are a Government of enterprise and of fairness. Conservative Members who believe that enterprise is achieved only at the cost of fairness, and that fairness is achieved only at the cost of enterprise, are living in the world of the 1980s--when it did not work, and Britain ended up as an unequal, unfair and, eventually, economically unsuccessful society.
Our proposal for regional development agencies--with which my hon. Friend has long been involved--is a means by which we can bring expertise to helping develop industries in the north. Our proposals on training and employment are also working at a regional level. Moreover, I think that my hon. Friend will agree after hearing some of today's scientific announcements that there is encouragement for regions to think of how they might apply for some of the funding.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook):
With permission, I should like to make a statement on the latest developments in Iraq.
Last August, Iraq informed the Security Council that it was suspending co-operation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency other than on monitoring. The effect was to prevent both agencies from carrying out surprise inspections at sites that they suspected were part of a programme for weapons of mass destruction. The work of both agencies was confined to monitoring the status of sites that they had already cleared.
The Security Council responded with resolution 1154, which provided both a penalty for that violation of Saddam's agreement, and an incentive for him to comply. As penalty, we suspended the regular review of the continuing need for sanctions. As an incentive, we offered a comprehensive review if Baghdad returned to full compliance. Nevertheless, on Saturday, Iraq notified the Security Council that it would no longer co-operate with UNSCOM, even on monitoring.
As the outgoing President of the Security Council, Britain convened an emergency session, which agreed to a statement condemning the Iraqi action. It records the view of the Security Council that Baghdad's decision is a "flagrant violation" of Security Council resolutions and of the agreement it made with Kofi Annan on his visit to Baghdad in February. The Security Council's support for the statement was unanimous. It was fully endorsed by Russia, whose spokesman has said that Russia was "deeply concerned" about the Iraqi decision.
Baghdad's attempt to close down the work of the inspectorates coincides with evidence that Saddam Hussein continues actively to pursue his ambition to maintain his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. Only two weeks ago, a group of experts received the results of tests performed in French and Swiss laboratories to corroborate the US finding of traces of VX nerve gas in fragments of Iraqi missile warheads. The French laboratory found evidence consistent with the presence of nerve gas in the warheads, and both laboratories confirmed that Iraq had tried to decontaminate the warheads. For years, Saddam has maintained that Iraq had never achieved a deliverable VX weapon. Those discoveries expose his denials as one more lie.
Even greater anxiety relates to Iraq's programme for biological weapons. UNSCOM has concluded that Baghdad's most recent declaration of its biological weapons capacity fails to give a "remotely credible" account of the programme.
We are in close consultation with our allies to maintain a united front and to achieve the most effective pressure on Iraq. Today, a resolution will be tabled in the Security Council that will demand that Iraq immediately restores co-operation with both UNSCOM and the IAEA. That strong resolution has been drafted by Britain, and we will be working to achieve unity around it. We want to find a diplomatic solution, but we have always made it clear that all options remain open.
The latest decision by Baghdad is particularly perverse, as the Security Council agreed only last Friday on the terms of a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance with its undertakings. Those terms held out the prospect of a time frame for completion of the work of UNSCOM and the IAEA, and could, in turn, lead to the lifting of sanctions on Iraq.
Any such progress can be achieved only with the full compliance of Baghdad. So long as Baghdad continues to conceal its capacity for chemical and biological warfare, and so long as it obstructs UNSCOM from revealing the truth about those programmes, there can be no progress towards the lifting of sanctions.
Our dispute is with Saddam Hussein. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. On the contrary, we have grave concern for the suffering that they are experiencing under Saddam Hussein. Only last month, Max VanDer Stoel, the UN special rapporteur on Iraq, presented his latest report, which concluded that there has been no improvement at all in the repeated violation of human rights by Saddam Hussein, including torture, summary execution, arbitrary arrests and persecution of minorities.
Britain took the lead at the United Nations in pressing for a doubling of the "oil-for-food" programme. Consequently, Baghdad can now sell over $10 billion of oil per annum to pay for food, medicine and other humanitarian goods. I am pleased to report to the House that the latest information available to the UN confirms that, as a result, there have been positive improvements in access to food and medicine.
4.53 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |