Darren Jones
Main Page: Darren Jones (Labour - Bristol North West)Department Debates - View all Darren Jones's debates with the HM Treasury
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberThe Government remain committed to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% of GNI as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. The latest OBR forecasts show that the ODA fiscal tests are not due to be met within this Parliament, but we will continue to monitor future forecasts closely and each year we will review and confirm, in accordance with the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, whether a return to spending at 0.7% of GNI on ODA is possible.
I thank the Minister for protecting the level of ODA given the fiscal situation we inherited, but there are more wars going on in the world than at any time since world war two. Will he review the fiscal formula, which he and the Chancellor rightly voted against when put forward by the previous Government, put the ODA budget on a long-term settlement, and meet me to discuss how we can improve UK safety through the ODA budget?
I thank my hon. Friend for her question on a topic that I know she has great expertise in. She will know that it is important that spending across Departments, whether on military, humanitarian or economic support, is aligned with our ODA spending. The multi-year spending review is under way, and we will confirm budgets in June for the years ahead. As I have confirmed, we will come back to the House every year to review and confirm the fiscal tests as they relate to 0.7% of GNI on ODA.
Given that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the fiscal test of returning to 0.7% will not be met in this Parliament, and that there has been no equivalent uplift to the £2.5 billion that the Conservatives put to spend on in-country refugee costs, are the Minister and this Labour Government content to have presided over a real-terms cut to the ODA budget compared with the previous Conservative Government?
One of the issues, to which the hon. Lady alludes, is that under the last Administration, when they lost control of the borders and the asylum system, the cost of hotels to house asylum seekers waiting for their decision was included in the ODA definition of spending. That is why the Home Secretary is working at pace to reduce that backlog as quickly as possible, and we are making much more significant progress than the previous Administration did in many years.
To follow on from the Minister’s answer, Members will be reminded of the fact that ODA costs spent in the UK are now at record levels, thanks to the last Government. That should not be the case. ODA should be spent, as much as possible, in the world’s poorest countries. What steps are the Government taking to help the Home Office bring down those costs so that more aid can be spent where it is truly needed?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why both dealing with the Home Office backlog in processing claims and returns and working with counterparts in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the tribunal process is up to speed are intrinsically important to the ODA budget. Under the last Administration, crucial ODA for bilateral aid in countries around the world that were in desperate need of it was cut at short notice because of their mishandling of the asylum system. That will not happen under this Government.
I know that Members on the Treasury Bench attach great importance to the international development budget, not least because I recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer supported my efforts to stop the 0.7% being cut by my own Government, even winding up the debate with great skill and flair. Will Treasury Ministers therefore follow in the footsteps of the Chancellor’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), and top up the budget with an additional £2.5 billion so that the Foreign Office and the Government can achieve their own international development objectives?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure the Chancellor does, for his kind words. A key part of the test on ODA spending in terms of fiscal circumstances requires those circumstances to improve. One of the reasons we are in this problem in the first place is because of the mess the previous Administration left this country in. We are working hard to turn that around.
This Government recognise the contributions that miners made to the prosperity of the nation and the challenging circumstances in which they worked. That is why the Government agreed to transfer the investment reserve fund to members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, so that the mineworkers who powered our country receive a fairer pension.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that ending the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme is great news not only for the 849 former mineworkers in my constituency who will benefit, but for the economies of the local communities where they live, which were left behind by the previous Government? Will he and his colleagues in government continue to engage with the trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to ensure that, in the same way, the funds built up in that scheme are used for the benefit of its members?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his work on behalf of his constituents. He may know that, in the previous Parliament, I and colleagues worked on the mineworkers’ pension scheme through the Business and Trade Committee to lay the ground for the initiatives that this Government were quickly able to implement on coming into government. Unfortunately, that work had not yet been done for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, which is why Ministers are meeting the scheme’s trustees to consider the options.
This is an important issue for south Wales families. My uncle Jacky was a deputy at Cwm Marine pit and my uncle Georgie was a deputy at Oakdale. Sadly, they have now passed, but they were members of the British Coal pension scheme. Many of their mining friends will be in their 80s and 90s, and their pensions deserve uplifting, so will the Minister please commit to making good progress here? Time is running out for the men and women who fired our industrial past.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question on an issue that I know is deeply important to him, his constituents and his family, and on which he has worked for many years. The Government are actively considering proposals from the scheme’s trustees, and we will set out the next steps in due course. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in the Department for Business and Trade will be working on the detail, and I will be meeting her shortly to consider the options.
I have significant former mining areas in the Douglas valley and Upper Nithsdale in my constituency. Constituents there are concerned about the British Coal scheme, because many people in that scheme actually worked underground before being promoted into other jobs. To ensure fairness in the implementation of this Government policy, will the Minister make sure that the timescale on which they are compensated is the same as that for those in the other scheme?
I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and I think “fairness” is the right word. That is why we worked in opposition to try to persuade the last Government to act on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, but we failed because the last Government did not think this was an urgent issue for them to consider. The Labour Government have implemented this change at our first Budget, and that is fairness in action. We will continue to work with trustees of the BCSSS, and we will come back with further options in due course.
Let us go to the Member for that well-known mining area of Strangford.
Mr Speaker, I spoke to the Minister beforehand, so he knows where I am coming from with my question.
I understand that some families of those affected who have passed away have retired to Northern Ireland, and they deserve their pensions. That being the case, has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to ascertain the numbers of those in Northern Ireland who will qualify for such pensions, and will he chase up those people to ensure they get the moneys they deserve?
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I am afraid I have not had time to do so since he told me 35 minutes ago that he was going to ask that question, but I have heard it clearly. I will take that away and come back to him in course.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which clearly is important to him and his constituents. I confirmed to the House today that the Minister for Trade in the Department for Business and Trade is working with the trustees of the BCSSS to consider options. I will meet the Minister to look at those options and provide further updates to the House in due course.
Schools in Westmorland have been told that they will have to meet the costs of teacher pay rises next year, at least in part, from existing funds and by making efficiencies. Does the Chancellor not understand that all that is available to schools in my constituency is sacking teachers and merging classes? Will she instead commit to fully funding the teachers’ pay rise and other cost increases, so that our schools can do the job that they are meant to do?
The hon. Gentleman knows that in order for us to restore public finances and put them on a firm foundation, departmental settlements have to reflect the cost of the civil servants they employ; that is how the Departments are working. As the Chancellor has previously confirmed, the Department for Education has received money to cover the cost of running the education system, and the details will be provided to schools in the normal way in due course.
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an important champion for the Welsh economy. Wales can and will play a vital part in our growth mission. Our two Labour Governments continue to work together as we review the position inherited from the Conservative Government, including on rail infrastructure, and decisions will be set out in the spending review in June.
Will the Chancellor advise businesses in my constituency that are having to make staff unemployed and stop expansion plans in order to pay for her increases in employer national insurance contributions?