(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberI absolutely agree with my noble friend and thank him for what he says. He and I were part of the last Labour Government who saw such historic action on debt relief, and I agree that we should celebrate that and remind the world of it. Of course, the world is a different place now; the creditor landscape is very different. Previously, most of the debt was held by Paris Club members and multilateral institutions. Now, borrowers increasingly rely on non-Paris Club members, specifically China and the commercial sector. So the action that we need to take now is different from that which was taken before. My noble friend rightly says that multilateral institutions are important; the onus is on us to strengthen those institutions, speed them up and ensure that they work better than they do currently.
My Lords, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the Jubilee 2000 campaign—a remarkable coming together of tens of millions of people from around the world, which led to around $130 billion of debt being cancelled across 36 countries. It allowed those countries to reinvest in education, healthcare and poverty alleviation. The Pope has also declared this year a year of Jubilee and set up a commission to look at international debt relief. What are the Government doing to learn from the Jubilee 2000 campaign and to engage with faith communities and charities working in this sector?
My noble friend Lady Chapman tells me that we are doing exactly as the right reverend Prelate seeks. I completely agree with him on the history of the Jubilee movement. The UK wants to see effective solutions to those debt challenges. We strongly support the IMF’s three-pillar approach to providing support to countries facing immediate liquidity pressures. Where a country needs to restructure its debt, as I have said before, the common framework remains the best available tool to do so. We are focused on ensuring that the common framework delivers more timely, orderly and co-ordinated restructuring.
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberI am grateful to the noble Baroness for her concern. She talks about employment, but, according to the OBR, it will rise by 1.2 million people over the course of the forecast, so I am not sure that what she is saying there is correct. As I have said repeatedly during this Question, the impact assessment she refers to takes no account of the £1 billion investment in helping people get back into work, so I am afraid that the impact assessment figures she is using are not correct. The OBR will look at the additional £1 billion over the course of the summer and come back with an updated impact assessment that takes it into account.
My Lords, I appreciate the work that the Government are doing to stimulate the economy and to get people back into work. I understand the dilemma that the Government face with the spiralling costs of welfare. But I am left to wonder: how is it that the DWP’s own impact assessment, which I understand includes the £1 billion investment that the Minister referred to, does also state that 250,000 people will be pushed into relative poverty, including 50,000 children? How can the Government of one of the richest countries in the world justify policies that push people into poverty?
I hate to contradict the right reverend Prelate, but I am afraid that the impact assessment does not take account of the dynamic effects of the £1 billion invested from the £4.8 billion of savings—the OBR has said that very clearly. It will look at that and come back with its assessment of what the impacts will be. He asked me how I can justify reforming the system. I do not know how we can justify a system where one in eight young people is not in employment, education or training. I do not understand how we can justify a system that writes off an entire generation and leaves them consigned to a life on benefits. I do not understand how we can have a system that writes off people and does not give them the support to get them back into work. I think that is the moral thing to do.