---

International Finance Facility

2. Valerie Davey (Bristol, West) (Lab): What recent progress has been made on the international finance facility. [179123]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): We welcome the proposals at the G8 summit last week that advance our proposal for the international finance facility to double aid and halve poverty. In September, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will report on the proposal. I can also confirm that the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation has indicated interest in applying the principles to the next stage of its important work.

Valerie Davey: I thank the Chancellor for that reply and for his strong international leadership in this field. The vast majority of my constituents want the Government to give a strong moral and financial lead in campaigning for global justice, so can my right hon. Friend tell them and the House how the IFF will link to and support the Commission for Africa?

Mr. Brown: The Commission for Africa will report at the beginning of next year. It will look at proposals under which money for education, health and anti-poverty programmes in Africa can be financed. That report will contain recommendations about the financing of such proposals, including support for the IFF. Over the next few months, we shall have discussions with other countries; France and Brazil will be making a report in the next few weeks; I shall be visiting the Vatican to discuss how it can help to move the proposals forward; and I believe that many other organisations will join the 50 countries that have already given support to the facility.
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 896
 

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Despite the Chancellor's lead on the matter, we are unlikely to make much progress until after the US presidential election, so will he consider the Treasury working with the Department for International Development to produce a paper that could be published at the start of the United Kingdom's G8 presidency to show how long it will take, at present rates of development assistance, to reach the millennium development goals? Many people in Congress and elsewhere think that the US millennium challenge account will do it all. There is insufficient international recognition of the fact that at present levels of spending we are light years away from meeting the millennium development goals.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development. He has played an important part internationally in giving support to the proposals. He is right: on present trends, in sub-Saharan Africa the education and anti-poverty targets will not be met until 2150—not 2015 but 150 years from now. That is why there is urgency to persuade the Americans and other countries that we must find a new mechanism to finance development aid. Support for the UK proposal is growing and I am grateful that we have support for it on an all-party basis. I believe that we can do more to win over the Churches and the non-governmental organisations, as well as Governments, and I look forward to support for the proposal from parliamentarians of all countries.

Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon) (Lab): Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the important lobbying for the international finance facility will not be an excuse for this country not spending 0.7 per cent. of our gross national income on international aid? If part of the lobbying for the IFF says that nations need to mean what they say when they sign up to things such as the millennium development goals, do we not need to mean what we said when we signed up, 34 years ago, to spend 0.7 per cent. of GNI on aid? That target is achievable. Will we see it in the comprehensive spending review?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a very big interest in these matters. She chaired a meeting that I spoke at only a few weeks ago. We have increased overseas development aid from 0.26 to 0.4 per cent., and there will be further announcements, of course, in the spending review that will report before the summer recess. There has been a real-terms increase of almost 100 per cent. in the amount of money going into development aid and, because of the untying of it, there has been a doubling and more in the aid that is going to Africa, which is the source of some of the greatest problems that she has talked about. I can assure her that we remain fixed on the goal of 0.7 per cent. I can also assure her that there will be further announcements to come. Perhaps she would note the fact that, if the Opposition had their way, they would freeze development spending in cash terms, cut it by 5 per cent. in real terms, and the percentage of overseas aid would
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 897
 
go down to the 0.26 per cent. that we had to inherit when we came to office. I hope that they will reconsider their position.

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries) (Lab): I appreciate that the IFF has been designed to front-load and meet the required targets to achieve our millennium development goals. I have heard what my right hon. Friend has said this morning, but has any real progress been made in ensuring that the other interested Governments—in particular, the United States—are as committed to what we in this country are trying to achieve?

Mr. Brown: The reason I wanted to deal with this question after the G8 meeting is that progress was made on debt relief for the poorest countries. The G8 decided only last week to provide the necessary financing for the completion of the debt initiative, so progress is being made on one specific aspect that would come under the IFF. I believe that there is also general agreement that, if Africa is to make the necessary reforms, support for education, health and anti-poverty programmes must be provided. I think that my hon. Friend will know that 50 countries have already supported the proposals. I look forward over the next year, particularly in our presidency, to achieving far wider support for the IFF. It is one of the means by which we can indeed meet the 2015 millennium development goals.

Plastic Bags

3. Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): What studies the Treasury has made of the environmental benefits of a plastic bag tax. [179124]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The Government conducted an assessment of a plastic bag tax in December 2002. A copy of the report is in the Library.

Dr. Pugh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer; I will study the report. Do Ministers agree that our environmental taxation must be evidence-based and, in respect of plastic bag use, take into account reuse, recycling and the disposal costs of substitute packaging?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right in principle and right on the detail. Of course, we make great efforts to ensure that any development of any fiscal decision is evidence-based. That is in part why we conducted an assessment of a plastic bag tax, including in Ireland. I think that he will find that the factors that he mentions are covered in that report, when he gets around to reading it.

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Durham county council on working with major food retailers in the county—such as Tesco, Sainbury's and the Co-operative Society—not only to encourage customers to reuse their carrier bags, but to provide biodegradable carrier bags? Does he agree that that is a better way forward than slapping an arbitrary tax on shoppers?
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 898
 

John Healey: We are keen to see precisely those sorts of initiatives and innovations, and I certainly welcome the moves that have been made in my hon. Friend's area both by the Co-op and by his local council. Beyond plastic bags, it is true that councils more generally are making a real effort and real progress in reducing the amount of waste and increasing the amount of recycling. That is certainly the direction that we need to encourage.

Gershon Review

4. Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): What discussions he has had with Sir Peter Gershon regarding the total savings in public sector employment within the Department for Work and Pensions as a result of his efficiency review. [179125]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I will report further on my discussions with Sir Peter Gershon when I make the spending round announcements. It has already been agreed that there will be 30,000 fewer staff posts at the Department for Work and Pensions. Some 10,000 staff will be redeployed, and numbers will fall from 130,000 to 100,000.

Mr. Djanogly: But is this not yet another example of the Government's mismanagement of the public sector? They have been spending millions of taxpayers' pounds to create tens of thousands of public sector jobs only to be told by the likes of Sir Peter Gershon that there are too many workers and that they are often working in the wrong places. Does the Chancellor agree that a better run Department would have saved the costs of recruitment, training and 40,000 redundancies if it had not created the jobs in the first place?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman complains about the expansion of public sector jobs, but let me remind the House of his election pledges:

"Increase police numbers in Huntingdonshire  . . . Improve local roads  . . . Expand  . . . hospital and fund extra schools and pensions  . . . Improve our leisure, shopping and children's facilities."

If that is not a demand for extra public spending from the Conservatives, what is?

Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of people in Blackpool and along the Fylde coast work hard for the Department for Work and Pensions, and does he acknowledge that that hard work is delivering essential services? At Warbreck house, people are delivering disability living allowance and the pensions agency is operating at Mexford house. A variety of different services are carried out at Norcross. Does the Chancellor understand that the people who work in those places are anxious about their future? Will he make sure that there is full and meaningful consultation with trade unions and employees to ensure that essential jobs remain and services continue?

Mr. Brown: It was precisely because Sir Peter Gershon gave us accurate information on job reductions and savings, and said that if we went further than that we
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 899
 
could put services at risk, that we came to the decision about the numbers that I have announced. We are being sensitive, and when I announced the figures in the Budget I paid tribute to the work done in the Department for Work and Pensions. I know that the Department employs many people in my hon. Friend's constituency who do an excellent job for the service. We have invested £2 billion in new technology, which allows us to cut the number of staff in back-office services. However, there will also be 10,000 additional personal advisers so that the front-line work of the service will continue and, indeed, be enhanced so that more people can get back to work.

Sir John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West) (Con): Do the employment figures that the Chancellor cited take account of the anticipated employment costs of the pension protection fund and the new office of the regulator? If not, what does the Chancellor anticipate that they will be?

Mr. Brown: These figures are for the Department as a whole. The individual figures on the administration of the pension protection fund will be announced in due course by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We are determined to honour our commitment to make the pension protection fund work. Of course, we have also set aside money to deal with people who cruelly lost their pensions through no fault of their own under previous arrangements.

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that our investment in the Department for Work and Pensions ensures that we have a better service for those who want the pension credit and those who are looking for jobs. At the same time as we are making the savings, we are ensuring that there is a proper service for everyone who depends on the Department.

Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are in a period of economic stability with record low unemployment—recent figures show that it is 2.8 per cent.—compared with the period of mass unemployment under the Conservative Government? Does he agree that that gives us an historic chance to restructure the Department for Work and Pensions to help to create even more active labour market policies and ensure that those for whom finding work has been difficult, because their access to the labour market has been beset by problems such as discrimination, are now given the first chance in many years for a meaningful life at work?

Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, the Department for Work and Pensions is expanding its services to help lone parents to get into work, to help people with disabilities to find jobs and to help people from ethnic minorities who have often felt discriminated against in the labour market. It will offer a specific service to those people who want to get skills. A big expansion is taking place in the service. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we are determined to achieve full employment in our country. When Conservative Members intervene in this debate, they should congratulate us on having the lowest unemployment for 30 years.
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 900
 

Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs) (Con): When will the Government publish the Gershon report promised in April, and what proposals do Gershon or the Chancellor have to address the problem identified by the Public Accounts Committee that one in five welfare payment decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions are incorrect, leading to up to £7 billion per annum of benefits being paid out wrongly?

Mr. Brown: It is precisely because of problems that have been identified in the past that we have taken action. Compared with the position under the previous Government, the percentage of inaccurate payments has gone down under this Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that in removing 40,000 gross jobs, or 30,000 net jobs, we are not going far enough in public sector reform. Indeed, no other Government have announced such a staff reduction in one Budget, so he should applaud us for taking action on efficiency, where his predecessors failed.

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Work and Pensions Committee, on which I serve, is currently carrying out an inquiry into computerisation, which he mentioned? Some of the evidence submitted to the inquiry suggests that his figures are very ambitious. Can he assure the House that when the Committee's report is finally published the Treasury will look at it very carefully?

Mr. Brown: The Treasury looks at everything very carefully, so I can assure my hon. Friend that we will examine the report and, after representations from the relevant Minister, we will discuss with him what should happen next. Despite the fact that we have to make announcements about job reductions, it is right to pay tribute to the tremendous success of the new deal and the Employment Service—now Jobcentre Plus—in creating job opportunities. Again, I should have thought that the shadow Chancellor would want to congratulate us, because in his constituency there are only seven people who are long-term unemployed.

---