---

Employment

6. Mr John McFall (Dumbarton) (Lab/Co-op): What representations he has received on his measures in the pre-Budget report to help people into work. [184075]

11. Ian Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): If he will make a statement on the effect on the economy of present employment levels. [184081]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With unemployment low and the economy growing, the pre-Budget report will report on the new deal for skills and how we can help people to obtain the skills that are necessary to fill the 600,000 vacancies in the economy. That will require us to maintain, not abolish, the new deal.

Mr. McFall: What progress is being made on the new deal for the over-50s, where unemployment is still comparatively high? Mindful that there are 630,000 job vacancies, what measures is my right hon. Friend taking in the tax and benefits system, which in the past has acted as a disincentive to unemployed people moving into work?

Mr. Brown: There will be some worry for Conservative Members about unemployment among the over-50s after the next general election, and the new deal for the over-50s will be of great help to them.

Of the 1.8 million new jobs that we have created since 1997, almost half have gone to people over 50, so it is not the case that people over 50 have not been offered jobs
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1536
 
or taken them up. It is true, however, that a large number of people over 50 still, for a variety of reasons, do not find that the tax and benefits system has helped them as it might. That is why we introduced the new deal for the over-50s and special incentives through the new deal for the over-50s, and why we will continue to address the issue in order to move towards full employment. I have to tell the House, however, that we could not move as fast or as far to full employment without the assistance of the new deal, so the Conservative party should reconsider its decision to abolish it.

Ian Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Government's creation of a stable economic climate and their commitment to public expenditure has led to record low unemployment in Eccles, which is 46.6 per cent. lower than it was in 1997? Does he agree that that forms the bedrock for new investment in Eccles where, for example, Salford City Reds rugby league club has plans for a new stadium and associated development which, with the help of measures outlined in the pre-Budget report, will create about 2,000 new jobs? By the way, we have plenty of brownfield sites for public servants.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The progress made in tackling unemployment in his constituency is most welcome. Although the new deal finances many things, it does not yet finance stadiums, but I hope that progress can be made both on sporting facilities and on raising employment levels in his constituency. The fact is that, without the new deal, more people would be unemployed today. Even in the constituency of the shadow Chief Secretary unemployment has been reduced from 2.7 per cent. to just 1 per cent. under a Labour Government, so how can he say that the situation is analogous to what happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s?

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Is not the Chancellor worried about employment levels in manufacturing industry, because there have been a great many job losses in manufacturing throughout the country over the past seven years? Does he take any responsibility for that, following the introduction of the climate change levy?

Mr. Brown: I notice that the Conservative party is now promising to abolish the climate change levy and the aggregates levy, so it must have the means to replace that income. As far as we are concerned—[Interruption.] It is revenue neutral only because we reduced national insurance as a result of it. Presumably, if the Conservatives abolished the climate change levy, they would increase national insurance. Is that another commitment by the shadow Chief Secretary and the shadow Chancellor?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Is the Chancellor aware that the project that followed the £24 million that he gave us for flattening the Shirebrook pit tips has been completed, and there is a prospect of 2,000 jobs on that business park? That is one reason why coalfield unemployment has gone down. The Markham Bolsover employment zone, which has received the first
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1537
 
£15 million of the funds that it needs, will give rise to 5,000 jobs. I urge my right hon. Friend to remember the site, which is located at junction 29A of the M1, and to etch it on his memory. We will need about another £20 million to complete the project, but those 5,000 jobs will be the biggest job development since the industrial revolution and will replace the 3,000 jobs that the Tories got rid of when the pits went.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has fought long and hard to replace the mining jobs that were lost in his constituency with new economic developments such as those that he described. We look forward not just to having full employment in one region but to achieving full employment in all the country's regions and nations. However, to pursue a matter raised in the Chamber today, if we are to continue to do so, we must have fiscal prudence as well. If the shadow Chancellor is now saying that he will replace the climate change levy with an £800 million increase in employees' national insurance to make the tax revenue neutral, the Opposition have, amazingly, announced another tax rise.

Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): Does the Chancellor accept that the shortage of home helps and community care workers must be tackled so that we can deliver proper care in the community? Will he seek to provide incentives through training and the new deal to encourage more unemployed people to offer such a service? Our hospitals will benefit, and we will get patients into their own homes much faster if a proper care in the community service is available.

Mr. Brown: We are increasing the level of personal social services finance as a result of the spending settlement. That will enable us to help more people to stay in their homes and to move people out of hospital more quickly into either care homes or back into their own homes. It will allow us to expand social services in our country.

We also wish to expand pre-school care, about which the hon. Gentleman asked, by training more carers. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, if he wishes to approach the Treasury, we will explain all the measures available to encourage the growth of child care and pre-school provision for his constituency, including tax relief on the £50 that an employer would pay to an employee to allow them to buy their child care. The rises in social services budgets are possible only because we are prepared to put more money into our public services. I ask the hon. Gentleman to contemplate a situation in which the Conservative party would cut social services expenditure, as well as industry, science, defence and law and order expenditure—that is the fate that the shadow Chancellor would leave us to.

Millennium Development Goals

7. Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had with African Finance Ministers on debt and the millennium development goals. [184076]
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1538
 

12. Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) (Lab): If he will make a statement on recent progress in attaining the objectives of the millennium development goals. [184083]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): On current proposals, the majority of countries will fail to meet most of the millennium development goals by 2015. That is why the UK has proposed an international finance facility.

Mr. Chapman: Is not debt incurred in a concessionary way and responsibly managed a good thing in developmental terms? Is not the problem debt that is not well used, not well spent, and badly managed by the Governments responsible? If we are to help African countries to reach their millennium development goals, and to help them in particular to tackle HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, do we not need to ensure that rich countries fulfil the obligations entered into at Monterrey? What pressure is my right hon. Friend putting on other nations in that regard, particularly on the United States, whose developmental assistance at this time is only 0.2 per cent. of GDP?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken an interest in these matters. Tuberculosis kills 2 million people a year, but to be able to protect people against it would cost very little if proper inoculation and vaccination were available. Equally, malaria carries off more than 1 million people a year, yet with expenditure on nets costing a few dollars, we could prevent avoidable deaths. That is why the global health fund and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation are important. That is why it is necessary to honour the Monterrey consensus, whereby the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe would provide an extra $9 billion in aid by 2006, and the US would provide $7 billion.

Contrary to what my hon. Friend said, the United States is moving ahead to make that money available, although its debt-to-GDP ratio is low. The question is whether we can use those additions in aid to borrow on capital markets and to have an international finance facility, which, with repayment over 30 years, could put up extra funds that would enable us to meet the millennium development targets over 10 years.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for his great focus on the millennium development goals while in office. Given the problems of war in many parts of Africa, to what extent does he collaborate and co-operate with his colleagues in the Foreign Office and in the Department for International Development to focus on getting peace in those areas, to make it much easier for those goals to be attained?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been involved in these matters over many years. Twenty-seven countries now have debt relief, but there would be at least 37 if the 10 countries or more that are engaged in conflict were out of conflict and able to be in a position to claim debt relief. As I said about Sudan, as long as there is not peace, we cannot get resources to the people who need them. If there were peace, and if we could broker a peace deal, in which Britain was involved, £150 million that we have allocated could be spent on helping people who are in grave difficulty in
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1539
 
Sudan. We must therefore work closely: the Africa Commission set up by the Prime Minister is considering aid, peacekeeping and economic development, and a combination of measures in those three areas will bring new hope to Africa.

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con): During his discussions with African Finance Ministers, does the Chancellor ever raise the question of how much aid reaches the people for whom it is intended? Will he now answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about the statement made by one of his colleagues about perceived corruption in Kenya? What does he propose to do about that?

Mr. Brown: Where there is corruption, it must be dealt with. Funds should not go to regimes in which we cannot guarantee that the money will go where it is intended to go—in most cases, to education and health programmes designed to help the poorest people of the country involved.

Let me repeat that even if all these things are done, more resources will be needed for both Africa and developing countries. The Conservative party cannot escape its responsibilities to the poorest countries of the world by saying that there is no need for more aid if corruption is dealt with. There will be a need for more aid—and how can the Conservative party support more aid when they are cutting the aid budget?

Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): In his discussions with African Finance Ministers and his colleagues in the World Bank, could the Chancellor make it a condition of the poverty reduction strategy papers and the debate about the millennium development goals that African Parliaments are fully involved in dialogue about those papers? We may talk of country ownership, but that means nothing if the Parliaments themselves have not built up the skills necessary for them to be involved.

Mr. Brown: It is proposed that the poverty reduction strategies should be not just country-owned, but owned by civil society. My hon. Friend, who has taken a huge interest in these matters and has been an International Development Minister, is trying to build links with African parliamentarians to bring about a strong civil-society presence and pressure for change. That is why his work is so important.

In the Africa Commission, we want to consult and listen to the Parliaments and the civil societies of African countries. I believe that we will achieve progress in Africa not just by talking to Governments, but by talking to people who were elected but are not members of Governments and to pressure groups and community organisations. There is, however, still the need for us to offer more aid as part of the process.

---