Precious Metal Markets

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jeremy Lefroy

Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to speak about this subject. In fact, my good friend the Minister may be a bit surprised that I wish to speak about it, because I think that he would, like me, agree with the biblical verse which states:

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust”

can damage them. However, I think he would also agree that trust in all things is incredibly important, and it is on that aspect that I wish to concentrate tonight, rather than the treasure that precious metals represent.

I am raising this subject for a number of reasons, which I shall go into in a moment. First, however, I must declare an interest, in that I have invested an extremely limited amount in precious metals as part of my pension provision.

My first reason for raising the subject is the importance of gold and silver as a store of value internationally. There are those who say that gold in particular is a relic of the past with little relevance to the modern financial system, but many countries do not seem to agree. Russia is steadily building up its gold reserves, which, 20 years ago, were well below those of the UK; now they are seven times as high. China rapidly increased its gold reserves in 2015. Several European countries, notably Germany and France, hold more than 60% of their reserves in gold. The United States—the owner of the world’s main reserve currency, which would perhaps have the least reason to hold gold reserves—still believes in gold, which comprises some 73% of its official reserves. And what of the UK? With just 310 tonnes—pretty much the same quantity for more than 15 years—we hold 8.5% of our official reserves in gold. However, this debate is not about the merits of the UK’s policy on official reserves, although I will refer to that briefly at the end of my speech.

If gold plays such an important role in nations’ reserves, it is vital that the means of trading it and establishing its price on the exchanges be fair and transparent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I sought his permission to make an intervention beforehand. Does he agree that there is a real need to safeguard investors and that the present procedures do not go far enough to protect them? They appear to be weighted on the side of the market, and this truly is not equitable or just.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and that is what I want to talk about: trust in the markets—and I am asking questions, not giving answers, because I do not have them.

We should note that gold and silver both act as currency crosses, trading as components of the $5-trillion-a-day foreign exchange marketplace. That is an astonishing figure. Clearly gold and silver are a very small part of the crosses market, but nevertheless they form part of it, and I have to say personally that I get increasingly worried by the huge volumes of daily trades on international markets and the vast amounts of derivatives that are outstanding at any one time. The last report I saw from the United States, I think from the last quarter, showed that something like $200 trillion-worth of derivatives were open at that time.

My second reason for raising the subject is that considerable quantities of gold and silver—and indeed the other precious metals, palladium and platinum—are mined in low and middle-income countries. As with other commodities—such as coffee and cocoa, with which I worked for many years, and still do a little bit—the price has a major impact on the economies of the producers; it has an impact on those who work in the mining industry and on the taxation revenues of the countries.

The third reason is that London is at the heart of the global trade in precious metals and has been since the late 17th century. At a time when institutions and businesses are under intense scrutiny, it is vital that we in this country uphold the highest standards, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister entirely agrees with that.

Just last year, a former vice-president of a major US bank pleaded guilty in the US to spoofing precious metals markets

“hundreds of times with the knowledge and consent of his immediate supervisors.”

Sentencing has been delayed; the implication is that the person is assisting the US Department of Justice’s investigation into others, possibly both within and outside the bank. Spoofing is a technical term, defined in the USA’s Dodd-Frank Act 2010 as

“the illegal practice of bidding or offering with intent to cancel before execution”,

or, in other words, to deceive the market. In another case, in January 2018, Deutsche Bank, UBS and HSBC paid $46.6 million in the US to settle Commodity Futures Trading Commission charges relating to spoofing in the precious metals markets.

I was first alerted to this subject by a constituent who had bought limited quantities of silver as an investment from Deutsche Bank while he was resident in Germany. Over the period in which he purchased the silver, the price peaked at $48 an ounce in 2011, and declined to below $20 by the end of 2014. It is always very difficult to determine the precise causes of a market’s movement; this was at a time of global uncertainty, financial stress in Europe and North America, and increasing demand for physical silver in electronics and other industrial purposes. My constituent stated in courts in both Germany and Birmingham in the UK that the bank had been manipulating the precious metals market. His cases were dismissed; nevertheless, shortly afterwards, in 2016, Deutsche Bank and others confirmed that market manipulation had indeed been taking place, and they paid penalties in the USA.

My constituent’s contention, with which I have considerable sympathy, is that it is the small retail investor who pays the price for such illegal behaviour of traders and the banks for which they work. The regulators, and hence the Governments, receive the fines, but investors find it almost impossible to prove a loss directly, because a number of factors affect market prices, not simply the illegal activity.

My intention in calling for this debate is not to seek any conclusions at this stage, or to go into the details of precious metals trading—still less of the complexities of derivatives contracts that piggyback on the metals—but rather to ask the Minister and the Government some questions and to call for action. My reasoning is that our country depends, more than any other major economy, on the stability of and trust in our financial services sector. The sector provides much well-paid employment, not just in London. Here I should express my regret at the job losses announced today in Deutsche Bank. At least 2 million people are employed in financial services throughout the UK, not just in London, and the sector contributes up to 10% of Government revenue. It also includes our heavy responsibility for and stewardship of the precious metals that we store and trade on behalf of most of the countries in the world.

I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, have the Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority or the Bank of England made an assessment of the result of the recent J.P. Morgan case involving the rigging of precious metals markets and its potential impact on the UK? After all, we are talking about financial institutions with a global reach. Secondly, do the UK authorities believe that any similar activity could take place, or has already taken place, in the UK, or by a bank domiciled here? Thirdly, if there is evidence that the manipulation of bullion markets by banks over a period has resulted in lower prices than would otherwise have been the case—that is clearly something to be proven—what recourse do producers and retail investors have against banks for that manipulation?

Fourthly, it is estimated that the quantity of so-called paper gold—that is, delivery contracts for gold—is approximately 100 times the quantity of available physical gold. That is not peculiar to the precious metals market; it happens with other commodities as well, but it is nevertheless a noteworthy situation. I accept that it is unlikely that most such contracts will end up requiring the delivery of physical gold, but what assessment have the authorities made of the risk that if delivery is required, those requirements might not be met? We have to take into account the steady increase in demand for gold—and, indeed, all precious metals—by states as well as by industry.

I suggest that, in addition to answering these questions, the Government commission an independent inquiry or review into the bullion market, particularly in the UK. Gold and silver are not simply commodities like coffee, cocoa, sugar or copper, vital as those are; they are a bulwark of the global financial system, the importance of which is possibly increasing. The UK is a relatively minor holder of gold as part of our reserves, but gold constitutes the majority of the reserves of many other countries. We have a significant role in the stewardship of the reserves of others, both physically and in their valuation. The trust that others place in our country and our institutions in this area matters enormously. An independent inquiry or review at this time would underline the fact that we value that trust greatly, and that we will strengthen controls wherever necessary. Indeed, I believe that some controls have already been strengthened in the recent past. Such a review or inquiry would also flag up risky or illegal activity and ensure that those responsible were brought to book, including by being required to compensate those who have suffered from it.

As I said at the beginning, my aim in this debate is to see whether there has been any activity in these markets in the United Kingdom that we should be taking a closer look at on behalf of investors, particularly the small retail investors who put some of their savings into these commodities; but it is also about the trust in our system in the United Kingdom. There is a huge amount of trust in the UK and its institutions. I believe that that trust is almost always well placed, but it can only continue to be well placed if we constantly scrutinise the system and check instances where we have an indication that things have not always gone well, or perhaps are not going well now, and take action quickly.

Traidcraft and Fair Trade

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great supporters and promoters of fair trade in retail over the past 30 years is the co-operative movement? Alongside Traidcraft and others, it has really taken forward fair trade and made it a household name in the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree. The hon. Gentleman brings wisdom and knowledge to this type of debate—to every debate, but to this one in particular. I thank him for that.

Unfortunately, that school of thinking has been somewhat lost, as some of the big companies look to the dividends of their shareholders and do not concern themselves with how suppliers lower the bottom line to meet their profit margin need. It is good that some companies have realised that they have to adhere to a moral compass. That is why Fairtrade and Traidcraft exist. I thank everyone who works in those wonderful organisations and takes part in what they do.

I am given to understand that there has to be a cut in staff numbers. That is unfortunate, and I encourage the venture to hold fast and keep doing good. There is a verse in scripture that always encouraged me: it says that we should not be weary in doing good, for we shall reap what we diligently sow. It is my belief that there are countless families in communities throughout the world who are reaping the benefits of what these organisations sow in fairness, respect, hard work and honesty.

Before making this contribution, I was thinking of the advert on TV for Fairtrade coffee, which tells the story of the young boys in the fields. If they were not doing that farming and that work, the alternative would be to go into criminal activity. By buying Fairtrade and Traidcraft goods, we enable people in other parts of the world to gain a wage, to have families and to grow, and we also keep them away from criminality.

UK Development Bank

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I start by declaring my interest as chair of the international Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

In this debate I will put forward the strong case for the United Kingdom to establish a development bank. I believe it is needed now more than ever, and for two particular reasons. As we leave the European Union we will also leave the European Investment Bank as a shareholder. That bank is based in London and has provided large sums of very important capital to projects throughout the UK, not least the Thames tideway tunnel not a million miles away from here and being developed right at this moment. I realise that this particular area does not fall within the Minister’s responsibilities, but they do cover the context of an international development bank, and both the UK aspect of development, which is at present done through the EIB quite considerably, and the international aspect of development financing can come through the same institution; in fact, that would probably be mutually beneficial.

We are one of the few major countries in the world that does not have its own development bank, whereas France has the Agence Française de Développement, or AFD, the Germans have the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, or KfW, and many other countries also have development banks, often on a very substantial scale. I shall address that point later.

As one of the major challenges the world currently faces, alongside climate change and the environment, is the creation of jobs and livelihoods, particularly for young people, a development bank is needed more than ever. The World Bank estimates that at least 600 million jobs need to be created in the next 10 or so years globally; my estimate is that well over 1 billion new jobs are needed. It is estimated that the population of sub-Saharan Africa will double between now and 2060, to 2.4 billion. If we do not tackle the question of economic development and livelihood-creation around the world and support countries to ensure that their young people have opportunities there, the migration crisis of 2015 onwards will be chicken feed compared with what we will see in future. That is of huge relevance to those young people who are forced to take perilous journeys, and also of great concern to nations in Europe, such as the UK, and elsewhere which will be forced to countenance huge migration on a scale we have not yet seen even in the last few years. This is not a theoretical question of whether it would be nice to have such an institution; it is absolutely fundamental for the development of major public and private projects in the United Kingdom and internationally that we establish a UK development bank, and the sooner the better.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I spoke to him earlier to get an idea of what this was about, and I congratulate him on bringing forward the debate. I have seen too many cases in my constituency of small businesses that are cash poor and asset rich and that are unable to make payments of even 1p more than the required amount. Does he agree that a development bank such as the one he has outlined that was friendly to small businesses and enterprises would encourage the bigger banks to remember their duty not only to the bottom line but to their local communities, which we represent, and to trust them to do the right thing with their money? Also, if he was looking for somewhere for this investment bank, would he agree that Belfast would be a great place for it?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman is right, although I am sure that many places will bid for it when it is established, as I hope it will be.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees: Europe

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate. I can say, hand on heart, that I cannot begin to imagine the plight of these children. My heart goes out to them. We have all seen the images on TV and have been disturbed by what we have seen. The children are in this predicament through no fault of their own, so we must help them. We have taken steps to do so, and we must take further steps. As hon. Members have said, we must think about these children as though they were our own and respond accordingly. We acknowledge that we have a role to play, and we must exercise wisdom in playing it.

In the short time that I have, I want to refer to some of the things that we have done in Northern Ireland, with Government help. The first Syrian refugees to arrive in Northern Ireland through the Syrian VPR scheme came to Belfast in December 2015. We had some 51 people—10 families—and they settled and were housed in north, south and west Belfast. As of June 2017, nine groups of refugees had been brought to Northern Ireland, bringing the total number to 558. Another 192 have come since then, and we now have some 750. Northern Ireland hopes to take 2,000 refugees over a five-year period. That may not seem like a terrible lot, but we are a small region and we are doing our bit. I want to put our commitment on the record in the Chamber.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May I say what tremendous work is being done in Northern Ireland? Sadly, we have this refugee crisis, and there will be refugee crises in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that the networks of support for refugees are maintained in all our regions, because they will be crucial in any future refugee crises that we come across?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman.

As well as bringing refugees in, we have to think about what we need to do afterwards. In order to support the Syrian refugee families with full integration into Northern Ireland, we need to support them with housing, health, benefits and school places for children. The costs of those things are met by Home Office allocations for the first year. I subscribe to what other Members have said: we have 250 places, so let us fill those places and do our bit. Let us make it clear what we in the United Kingdom are about. We must work out which situations merit opening our doors and which merit stepping in and doing what we can.

Let us put on the record what our Government and the Home Office do. When I looked up the funding allocation for Northern Ireland, I found that the Home Office provides some £11,120 per refugee to cover the first year’s costs. That covers resettlement costs and includes housing, education and healthcare, as well as key worker support, which is very important. Those things are all part of the integrated system—the full package—that is required. The Home Office agreed to make additional money available to cover additional educational costs and medical costs for any complex needs cases, of which there are many.

The Home Office also provides reducing levels of financial support for the resettlement of the refugees for up to five years after their arrival, so our Government provides ongoing support. When we bring in refugees, we give them the full package to keep them educated and get them settled. The funding from the Home Office will be sufficient to cover the costs of managing the arrival and resettlement of the refugees expected to arrive in Northern Ireland.

The Government have many methods of helping to settle refugees. As Members will know, I come from Northern Ireland; I fly over every time and then fly back. On the plane, the staff give a safety demonstration every time, and it never changes; we could probably recite it off by heart, but it is still important. They make it clear that in the case of oxygen being needed, we must first put the mask on ourselves before helping others to ensure that we can actually help others. I believe the same applies here, except for one difference: we have the oxygen, and we should try to help where we can.

In conclusion, may I ask the Minister whether if we can do more, he can show how? If we can do more, why are we not doing it? If we cannot, then what can we do for these children—and, indeed, for children in similar circumstances across the world? That is what this debate is about, and right hon. and hon. Members have made it very clear that we want action.

Drones: Risk to Aviation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the risk to UK aviation from drones.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. On Sunday 2 July, the runway at Gatwick Airport was closed twice—once for nine minutes and once for five minutes—as a result of the incursion of a drone. Five flights were diverted to other airports and several others were put into holding patterns, at great cost and inconvenience to airlines, the airport and, most importantly, passengers. In 2014, Airprox Board investigations into aircraft near misses with drones found that there were three, of which one was of the most serious category A. In 2015, the figure had risen to 27, with 13 category A incidents. In 2016, it had risen to 71, with 26 category A incidents—a huge increase in the most serious type of incidents. I secured this debate to find out from the Government what action they are taking and considering to counter that increasing threat to the lives of aircraft crew, passengers and those living under flight paths.

I am not anti-drone, and nor is the British Airline Pilots Association. I thank BALPA, along with the Civil Aviation Authority, Heathrow Airport, National Air Traffic Services and the House Library, for providing information on this subject. When properly and safely controlled, drones are of great value in, for example, precision agriculture, inspection of power cables, aerial photography, mapping and police work. Just this morning, I spoke with a constituent who runs Cloudbase Images Ltd. He was recently asked to carry out some work in the proximity of an airport. He contacted air traffic control there and they discussed a safe way of carrying out that work, which meant modifying the client’s requests. That is an example of how drones should and can be operated safely and professionally.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall for consideration. He mentioned the British Airline Pilots Association, which has warned that the use of drones could cause what it refers to as a catastrophic crash. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to step in and, perhaps, draw up the protocols used by the firm that he referred to and make them part of aviation law? There is not much sense in closing the door after the horse has bolted. Now is the time to get the protocols in order.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I will come on to it. He is absolutely right. One of the reasons for having this debate is to find out what the Government are doing and urge them to take action quickly where it is necessary.

My constituent was concerned because the airport said that very few people contacted them, even though it is adjacent to a big city where a lot of professional drone work is carried out. He was worried that others were not taking steps to contact air traffic control or to make the appropriate safety arrangements.

There has been enormous growth in the ownership of drones. Some 530,000 were bought in 2014 alone. Of course, the vast majority are for leisure use. When used responsibly, they are a great asset. They encourage interest in aviation and aerodynamics and lead to innovation. But there is also irresponsible or downright dangerous use, which poses a risk to aircraft and passengers. The key is regulation and enforcement that protects aviation without seriously damaging what is becoming an important sector of the economy.

Drones are currently subject to the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation Order 2016, which stipulate—for all drones—that they must not “endanger persons or property” and that whoever is controlling the drone

“must maintain direct, unaided visual contact”

at all times. Drones weighing more than 7 kg must not be flown at a height of more than 400 feet, or 500 metres horizontally, nor in

“Class A, C, D or E airspace”

or

“within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit”.

To operate a drone outside those limits, or to carry out aerial work—even non-commercial work—requires an operating permit from the Civil Aviation Authority. That permission is given on a case-by-case basis by the CAA. By September 2016, 2,500 permits had been issued, which strikes me as a small number compared with the number of people who I believe are carrying out work with drones at the moment, whether commercial or non-commercial. There are further requirements for someone who wishes to operate regular flights with a drone. The CAA will also wish to be assured of the competence of the person piloting the drone.

I wonder how many people who purchase drones for recreational or commercial use are fully aware of the requirements. I spoke with someone recently—someone who I and presumably they themselves would regard as responsible—who had lost control of a drone. It had flown more than 10 miles at a height of 100 metres before running out of power.

So my first question to the Minister is what work is being done to ensure that all purchasers of drones, whether for leisure or commercial use, are aware of existing regulations. Although I believe that further, tighter regulation is essential—I will come on to that—the Department and CAA can do much right now.

Looking ahead to what needs to be done, the first task is to establish how much damage the collision of a drone with an aircraft would cause. The Government, together with the CAA, BALPA and the Military Aviation Authority, have carried out research on that and the report is complete; I understand that it will be published soon. When will that be and what action does the Minister intend to take on publication?

From speaking to those involved in this area, I understand that the risks arising from a drone impact are likely to be serious, even with very small drones, and that there is a particular risk to helicopters, military or civilian, such as those used by the police, search and rescue or air ambulance services. The possibility of a drone strike is now listed by the Joint Helicopter Command of our armed forces as one of the five greatest risks to life in its sphere of operations.

BALPA believes that a drone of only a few tens of grams could cause serious damage in a collision at speed. The most popular drone weighs 1.5 kg— 1,500 grams. We will need careful and comprehensive regulation covering all but the smallest and least powerful of drones.

Burundi

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great honour to raise the subject of the political situation in Burundi under your chairmanship, particularly on international human rights day.

Last week we spent 10 and a half hours discussing Syria, the subject of United Nations resolution 2249, but I shall refer to United Nations resolution 2248, which relates to Burundi. Perhaps we in this House ought to pay more attention to resolutions of the Security Council, of which the United Kingdom is a permanent member, because they often highlight crises around the world.

Everyone I have met who has been to Burundi has returned with a love for the country and its people. I had the privilege of going there for the first time in 2011 with the International Development Committee and have returned several times since. I declare an interest in that I help to lead the Conservative party’s social action project Umubano in Burundi with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), whom I am glad to see in her place. We worked in Burundi in 2013 and 2014. We had planned to go this year, but unfortunately the political situation there made that impossible.

All those who care deeply about Burundi have been greatly concerned by the violence of the past few months, which started before the presidential and parliamentary elections. We all long for it to come to an end and for stability to prevail. We also wish to see a return to the greater freedom of expression for which Burundi has rightly been commended in recent years, following the turbulent first 40 years after independence.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I asked his permission earlier to intervene. I understand that the UN says that since April this year 240 people have been killed. Just yesterday five people were taken away, beaten, shot and disappeared. Their only crime, if it is a crime, was that they spoke out against the president. It is clear to me that the vigilantes think they can do what they like. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is time the vigilantes were restricted and the Government took control?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I totally agree. There are still killings almost every day in Burundi. I will come to that later.

I was talking about the first 40 years after independence, which saw several ethnically based mass killings, in particular during 1972, when between 150,000 and 300,000 people were murdered, mainly by Government or Government-inspired forces, including the elimination of almost the entire Hutu elite. I shall spend a little time going through history because it is so relevant to what is happening today. Whereas April 1994 is remembered as the beginning of Rwanda’s terrible genocide, it is often forgotten that the shooting down of the presidential plane that killed the Rwandan President Habyarimana and marked the start of the genocide also brought about the death of Burundi’s President, Cyprien Ntaryamira. He was the second Burundian leader to meet a violent end within six months, as the democratically elected Melchior Ndadaye had been murdered the previous September.

Violence escalated in 1995 and 1996 and there followed several years of civil conflict. A series of peace talks took place, sponsored by the regional peace initiative in Burundi, mediated by former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere and held in Arusha, but not much progress was made. Some of the main political parties, including CNDD-FDD—the current governing party—were not involved at this point. In August 2000 a peace agreement, known as the Arusha accord, was signed by the Government, the National Assembly and a range of Hutu and Tutsi groups. This provided for the establishment of a transitional Government for three years, the creation for the first time of a genuinely mixed army, and a return to political power sharing. Neither the CNDD-FDD, nor the FNL—an armed wing of another political party—was involved in the agreement and military activity increased in 2001.

The CNDD-FDD eventually agreed to a ceasefire in December 2002, which came properly into effect in October 2003, when final agreement was reached on the terms of power sharing. The soldiers of the CNDD-FDD, led by Pierre Nkurunziza, the current President, were to be integrated into the national armed forces and given 40% of army officer posts. Negotiations in South Africa to agree a new constitution met with success in November 2004. It provided for a 60:40 power-sharing agreement and both Hutu and Tutsi Vice-Presidents. A minimum of 30% of the Government had to be women.

In 2005 elections were held under the new constitution, resulting in a decisive win for the CNDD-FDD, led by Nkurunziza. He was elected President indirectly, as the new constitution provided, by the National Assembly and Senate. The indirect election is the source of the controversy surrounding the 2015 elections.

This still left the FNL. Rwasa, its leader, announced in March 2006 that he would enter unconditional negotiations to end hostilities and a ceasefire agreement was signed in September 2006. However, talks on points of disagreement broke down and a formal end to the conflict did not come about until 2009. We can see how long the people of Burundi have suffered under various forms of civil conflict.

The presidential election in 2010 saw Nkurunziza returned with 91.6% of the votes cast. International observers believed that the election met international standards, but they expressed concern at the worsening political climate. Between the 2010 election and 2015, low-intensity violence—if there can ever be such a thing—continued. Rwasa had fled in June 2010 and was reported to have moved to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where he was recruiting fighters. There were killings by rebels and by Government forces. In December 2011 UN Security Council resolution 2027 called on the Government to halt extrajudicial killings.

Amid all this there was real progress. The integration of the Burundian army was generally a great success. It began to take part in many peacekeeping operations, where its skills and discipline were respected. Most notably, it has played a huge role in AMISOM—the African Union Mission to Somalia—alongside the Ugandan and Sierra Leonean armies, and latterly the Kenyan army, in bringing stability to Mogadishu and other parts of Somalia. That cost the lives of more than 450 Burundian soldiers, and great credit and honour must be paid to them. Burundian press and civil society were generally free and active for some of that time. A national human rights commission was established, although the Government delayed setting up the truth and reconciliation commission and the special tribunal to prosecute crimes against humanity committed during the civil war.

With elections due in 2015, the question of President Nkurunziza’s eligibility for another term came sharply into focus. His supporters claimed that, due to an ambiguity in the constitution, his election in 2005 was by Parliament and not by the people, and therefore his election in 2010 marked the beginning of his first term, not his second. Opponents said that the Arusha agreement, on which the constitution was based, stipulated a maximum of two presidential terms, which he has completed this year.

The National Assembly narrowly defeated a proposal to revise the constitution in 2014. However, President Nkurunziza was officially announced as a candidate in April 2015 and the constitutional court validated that on 4 May. The vice-president of the court fled to Rwanda, maintaining that the decision had been made under duress and intimidation. Mass protests followed the decision and were met with very strong force by the police, which was condemned by regional and international figures. Election aid was suspended by the EU and Belgium.

On 13 May there was an attempted coup while President Nkurunziza was in Tanzania to discuss the crisis. It was led by the former head of Burundi’s army and, more recently, its intelligence service, who had been sacked earlier in the year. He specifically cited the President’s candidacy at the forthcoming election, which he blamed for instability. The coup attempt was unsuccessful.

The parliamentary elections were eventually held on 29 June and the presidential election on 21 July. Both were largely boycotted by the opposition parties and both resulted in the CNDD-FDD receiving just under 75% of the vote. According to the United Nations electoral mission, this time the elections were not free or fair. The electoral commission declared a victory for President Nkurunziza.

Since the election, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has pointed out, violence has continued, with killings of unarmed civilians as well as armed opposition and Government security forces. This has sometimes been accompanied by rhetoric from political leaders that can only inflame the situation. In one speech on 29 October, a senior politician is reported to have said in respect of action against armed opposition members—this is translated from the Kirundi—

“you tell those who want to execute mission: on this issue, you have to pulverize, you have to exterminate—these people are only good for dying. I give you this order, go!”

The United Nations is rightly alarmed. In its resolution 2248, to which I have referred and which was adopted on 12 November, the Security Council expressed its

“deep concern about the ongoing escalation of insecurity and the continued rise in violence in Burundi, as well as the persisting political impasse in the country, marked by the lack of dialogue among Burundian stakeholders.”

Tropical Diseases

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and we have seen the consequences of taking our foot off the pedal in the past. In Zanzibar, malaria was almost eliminated in the 1950s, but it came back with a vengeance. There was another programme in the 1980s, and the foot was taken off the pedal and it came back with a vengeance. The same has happened in Sudan and many other places, so we must deal with that. I think the figures she quoted are accurate, but if we manage to tackle malaria and get to virtual elimination, it will add more than $4 trillion dollars to world GDP, so it is a hugely important investment to make.

Improving health systems is another reason why we have seen progress in many developing countries, with increasing local funding, although some countries really need to step up to their pledges—for instance, the Abuja declaration of committing 15% of budgets to health, which only a few sub-Saharan countries do at the moment, along with unprecedented co-operation, which I have described. We will need all these and more as we face the challenge of the next 15 years, which is to meet the WHO’s global technical strategy for malaria 2016 to 2030.

On top of that, we face two forms of serious resistance: by the malaria parasite to artemisinin-based combination therapies in the Mekong region in south-east Asia, from where resistance to both chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine started and spread to sub-Saharan Africa, which is why it is vital to get on top of this; and by mosquitoes to the insecticides on bed nets, which are becoming resistant to pyrethroids. We also see serious outbreaks where bed net distribution has failed and health systems are weak. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) is going to describe one such instance later in this debate.

The UK is heavily involved in work to counter both those threats, through the Department for International Development’s work and the global fund supported by DFID in Myanmar, working alongside the Government there, and through the work of the Innovative Vector Control Consortium, based in the Liverpool school, in searching for and testing new insecticides for bed nets. The UK has therefore been at the forefront in so many different ways, whether through funding or research—from the London school, the Liverpool school, Dundee, York, Imperial, Keele and other universities, or from business, NGOs, or, above all, people. There are so many I would like to mention, but I will not because of time constraints, but the UK has fantastic scientists in this field at all levels.

Given the effectiveness of UK support for tackling malaria over the last 15 years, will the Minister undertake to do his utmost to maintain that for the future? I am asking the UK not to increase the level of funding, but to maintain current levels. Reaching £500 million a year is a great achievement and others need to come forward to support the UK in this, not least the countries in which malaria is endemic.

The WHO’s roll back malaria framework states that malaria interventions are very good value for money:

“Immunisation is the only public health intervention that has been shown to be more effective than malaria interventions. Beyond the financial return, investments in fighting malaria will have enormous positive effects on agriculture, education and women’s empowerment. They will also contribute significantly to reductions in poverty and the alleviation of inequality.”

Almost exactly the same can be said about the work on neglected tropical diseases. They affect 1.4 billion people—possibly an underestimate—bringing disability and sometimes death. They have a devastating economic impact, yet treating them is cheap and entirely possible. Co-operation plays a vital role, and host Governments have a vital role to play. Many of these diseases can be treated in parallel through local health systems. It makes sense to work together rather than in silos. We saw that when we visited the NTD control programme in Mkuranga district in Tanzania—I went with two other hon. Members in the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases—where they were tackling lymphatic filariasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminth and trachoma all together. Universities also have a vital role to play. In the case of Mkuranga, an important partner was the schistosomiasis control initiative, based in the UK’s Imperial College London. Other universities are very important partners.

In the private sector, we have seen extraordinarily generous donations of drugs. I will list them because it is important that hon. Members understand the scale. Merck and Co. will donate Mectizan—ivermectin—for onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis in Africa for as long as it is needed, with no limit. GSK has already donated nearly 2 billion tablets of albendazole for lymphatic filariasis and will continue until elimination, and has also donated 1 billion per annum to de-worm school-aged children. Johnson & Johnson has donated 200 million tablets of mebendazole a year. Pfizer donated 70 million doses of azithromycin for trachoma in 2012 alone. Novartis has donated drugs for leprosy. Eisai, the Japanese company, has donated 2 billion tablets of Diethylcarbamazine for lymphatic filariasis, and E. Merck has donated 20 million doses of praziquantel a year, going up to 250 million tablets a year from 2016 for schistosomiasis. These are huge figures that will substantially reduce the costs of treatment in countries where those diseases are endemic.

There are also product development partnerships. As well as the Medicines for Malaria Venture and the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, we have the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, which focuses on developing new treatments for the most neglected patients suffering from diseases such as human Africa trypanosomiasis, Chagas disease and lymphatic filariasis, as well as paediatric HIV. Again, the UK has taken a leading role. On top of the £50 million committed by the previous Labour Government, a further £195 million was pledged by the coalition. The UK is also the second largest funder of the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, with £64 million donated, second to Gates, who has given $126 million. The one other donor with more than €20 million of donations is Médecins sans Frontières, which has donated €66 million.

The UK has also played a leading role by hosting the London conference—a big conference that set the path for the next few years; we need to find out where we have got to with that—and the declaration on neglected tropical diseases, an important declaration that I want to quote from:

“Inspired by the World Health Organization’s 2020 Roadmap on NTDs, we believe there is a tremendous opportunity to control or eliminate at least 10 of these devastating diseases by the end of the decade”—

that is just over four years away.

“But no one company, organization or government can do it alone. With the right commitment, coordination and collaboration, the public and private sectors will work together to enable the more than a billion people suffering from NTDs to lead healthier and more productive lives—helping the world's poorest build self-sufficiency.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to speak in this debate. Obviously the issue is very important. The number of Members present is an indication of that. I have not yet heard—although I am sure he is coming to it—about the vast contributions that faith groups, churches and missionaries make throughout the world to eliminate poverty and help people to work their farms and so on. Almost every church in my constituency of Strangford has a project to give help directly to an area in Africa, the middle east and the far east. Does he recognise the good work that those churches and faith groups do?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I do indeed. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I recognise the huge amount of work done by faith groups and missions around the world. They often run remote hospitals, which even the state health system cannot afford to maintain. I have seen the work that they do. Indeed, my wife ran a public health education programme for 11 years in Tanzania and saw at first hand the work that was done when she worked for the Lutheran Church there.

I will not go through the London declaration in detail, because I want other hon. Members to speak, but I will quote the final words:

“We believe that, working together, we can meet our goals by 2020 and chart a new course toward health and sustainability among the world’s poorest communities to a stronger, healthier future.”

Real progress has been made in the past few years. To take one example of many highlighted by the Overseas Development Institute last year, Sierra Leone made great strides in preventing four of the five diseases that make up 90% of the world’s NTD burden: onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis, soil-transmitted helminth and schistosomiasis. In particular, on schistosomiasis, which can lead to death through liver disease and bladder cancer, 562,000 people in Sierra Leone received preventative treatment in 2009. By 2012, that figure had reached 1.4 million, which was 99% of those needing treatment. We have heard of the tragic trials of Sierra Leone in the past year and a half, but it is important that we also recognise the huge amount of work that Sierra Leoneans have done to treat many of these other diseases.

Health Services in Staffordshire

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and reiterate his remarks about the excellent work done in my constituency by staff at the County hospital to recover the situation, which a few years ago was extremely difficult, to one where the quality of care offered is of a very high standard.

To return to cancer and end-of-life services, the real concern has been over the method being used. To quote Macmillan:

“We think a procurement process is the best way to integrate the fragmented cancer and end of life services we have in Staffordshire. A procurement process is needed because at the moment there is no one organisation with overall control of cancer or end of life services.”

My argument has always been: in that case, what are CCGs for? They are there to commission, so why can they not commission? In the last Parliament, we gave them the ability to work together to procure services, so why cannot the four CCGs involved, together with Macmillan, simply make that happen? The answer I was given at the time was that the constraints on CCGs’ own administration costs—a reducing amount of funding per head—meant that it was impossible. Sometimes I am puzzled. We see this all over Government and have done for many years and across many Departments: we constrain spending on so-called bureaucracy and then, in order to get necessary things done, pay large sums of money to consultants to do precisely the kind of bureaucratic work that we forbid the experts from doing—in this case the CCGs—but, because it is called consultancy or programme work rather than overheads, it is allowed. There is a problem that needs to be solved—I do not deny that—and it affects the lives of my constituents and those of other Members, so it must be solved.

Macmillan says about the first two years of the contract:

“The main responsibility of the integrator will be to address the current inadequate data about pathway activity and the real cost of this activity. Much increased investment over the last decade has arguably been wasted by poor contract accountability and a lack of reliable data and analytics.”

That is important, but it is a research and advisory role. I have no problem with the CCGs calling in experts to offer them such research and advice, whether it is a private company, university or, indeed, another arm of the NHS. A fee will be paid for that work. Again, I have no problem with that, but I would like the Minister to say how much it is likely to be. As local MPs, we have a right to know, on behalf of our constituents, or at least have a rough idea.

According to Macmillan, after 18 months the integrator —I would say consultant—will be expected to

“present a more detailed strategy as to how they expect to achieve improved service outcomes. If the evidence is robust, arrangements will be made for all contracts to be transferred to the Service Integrator from the beginning of year 3. If not, the contract with the Integrator could be terminated and the Service integrator will be required to repay all (or a significant part) of their fee to date.”

That is where I do not see the logic. What makes an organisation that is good at research and advice the right body to run cancer services for our constituents? Why can it not simply be thanked for its advice and that advice, if it is good, be followed by the CCGs, working in co-operation with the providers? The risk is that the vital work that patients, the CCGs and Macmillan have done, with the very best of intentions, will be damaged by contractual arrangements that do not make sense and may put a private organisation with a somewhat different ethos in charge of commissioning NHS providers for services, rather than the other way round.

I have no problem at all with a private organisation producing a much better plan for cancer and end-of-life services, nor do I have a problem with social enterprises or private providers being involved in delivering certain elements of that plan, as they do now and have done under Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments. However, I do not see the logic in the organisation producing that plan becoming another bureaucratic tier between the CCGs, providers and patients. I therefore ask the Minister to take up the proposed contract with the CCGs.

The state of general practice is gradually becoming critical in our area. Many GPs are retiring or approaching retirement. I welcome the Government’s plans to train more GPs, but we will also have to train more medical students or rely on recruiting from overseas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Health questions this week, an issue close to my heart was raised about GP numbers and how many doctors are choosing to become GPs. We have similar issues in Northern Ireland. The difficulties in Staffordshire have been outlined, but they are mirrored across the whole of the United Kingdom, and particularly in Northern Ireland. Could any steps be taken to encourage more doctors to become GPs, thus dealing with the problem of the massive number of patients that each doctor has, because we are getting to the stage where doctors will not be able to cope?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who hits the nail on the head. It is vital to increase the number of medical students and those training as GPs. I know that the Government want to do that and are committed to it, but I believe they need to expand the number of medical school places.

What plans do the Government have for expanding the number of medical school places and ensuring that those trained stay and work in the NHS, particularly in those areas that are running short of GPs? A seven-day personalised service is an ideal, but those GPs who take the care of their patients extremely seriously—and that is the vast majority of them—are already working extraordinarily hard. The European working time directive most certainly does not apply to GPs, even if it does to the rest of the NHS, and if it were to apply, our family doctor service would fall apart.

Finally, I wish to address the financing of the NHS in Staffordshire. All parts of it are under strain. The KPMG report showed, although some of its solutions have rightly not been accepted, that there is a serious problem. The answer is not to be found in short-term fixes, whether they be in Staffordshire or elsewhere. The NHS England 2020 plan—tough though it is—gives us the opportunity to think long term. Yesterday, I argued in this place for a cross-party commission, including the medical professions, on the future of health and social care and its provision and financing for the 20 or 30 years beyond 2020. I repeat that call today, and I urge the Minister and his colleagues to take up the challenge.

Zimbabwe

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who knows so much about this subject, and indeed the many other distinguished contributions from right hon. and hon. Members today.

I wish to speak briefly about agricultural development in Zimbabwe. Many speakers have outlined the political situation, which is obviously critical and indeed is pertinent to agricultural development. However, although agriculture might not have the profile of mining or tourism, it has always been vital, as hon. Members have said, to Zimbabwe’s economy, as a food producer, exporter and employer. I have some personal experience of the very fine quality of Zimbabwean coffee through my employment in the coffee trade over the past 25 years.

I firmly believe that as the political situation is resolved—as it must be—Zimbabwe will begin to resume its place as an agricultural powerhouse of sub-Saharan Africa. That it was a powerhouse is beyond doubt. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned the 1980s, throughout which a newly independent Zimbabwe provided food security for the region, regularly exporting its surplus maize to Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia. Zimbabwe also supplied countries further afield, such as Ethiopia. Indeed, it was the place from which donor agencies bought food supplies to send elsewhere as aid. In 1986, the country had a maize reserve of nearly 2 million tonnes after a record harvest of about 3 million tonnes. To put that into context, as the hon. Gentleman did, the production level in 2008 was about 470,000 tonnes. This year, there has been an improvement and the figure is expected to be 1.3 million tonnes, but that is still less than half the level of production in 1986. So, this year, Zimbabwe will still be dependent on grain imports, although to a lesser extent than in the recent past. The welcome deregulation of the market will make it easier to meet the deficit.

I shall leave it to others to trace the history of that decline—the changes in marketing, an increase in land devoted to cash crops, serious falls in productivity and, in particular, land seizures—as I would like briefly to address the way forward for agriculture. The Select Committee’s report states:

“Land reform in Zimbabwe is a complex issue. It is also a highly-charged political issue between Zimbabwe and the UK. However, resolution is essential for political stability and continued economic”

growth. I certainly do not intend to wade into those deep waters—that is for others with far more specific knowledge of the situation. All I would say is that although I have followed events in Zimbabwe from afar, I have spoken with those who were very closely involved on more than one occasion. They filled me with great sadness about what has happened. Reform was desperately needed, but it could have been achieved in a very different way.

I will offer my personal experience from Tanzania, which might show a way forward for Zimbabwe in certain circumstances. In 1973, many commercial coffee farms in Tanzania that belonged to British, Greek, German and other nationals in the Kilimanjaro region were nationalised. For more than two decades, they were then owned and run by local villages and co-operatives, which were generally unable to invest. Production and quality declined so that by the mid 1990s, production was about 10% of what it had been in the early 1970s.

The Tanzanian Government wanted to see a revival of the farms but were conscious of the vital issue of land ownership. They considered two models: joint ventures and long-term leases. I was somewhat involved in the discussions in my capacity as secretary and then chairman of the Tanzania Coffee Association. We advocated leases and the Tanzanian Government, to their great credit, chose that route. We felt that that was the best way forward because, unlike with joint ventures, ownership of the land remained firmly in the hands of the local people, villages and co-operatives. The lease allowed the investor to develop the farm for the long term, paying a rent to the village or co-operative and employing local people while remaining the tenant.

The leases—I declare an interest, as I am involved in one—have so far worked reasonably well. Previously, the land brought almost no income to the community and little employment, and now it brings a healthy rent that has been used by the local communities to build school classrooms and much else. Many smallholder farmers in the surrounding area can supplement their income through employment.

I do not claim that such a model would work perfectly or that it would work in every situation. I am very much aware that there is justifiable anger over the leasing to new tenants of farms that were seized violently from those who had built them up over decades. By contrast, in Tanzania former owners were often encouraged to lease back their former properties and the ownership was in the hands of community groups, not powerful individuals. Such leasing arrangements are a way to put land ownership and its use to work for the benefit of the whole community while attracting investment and skilled management.

One objective of the Zimbabwean Government in recent years has been to transfer land to small-scale farmers. I welcome the objective, although not the manner in which it has often been carried out. My experience of smallholder agriculture, however, is that without good infrastructure to support it, it will be at best subsistence farming and certainly will not fulfil its potential. The infrastructure needed is physical—rural roads, storage, equipment, seeds and fertilizers—and, just as importantly, it involves training.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has not at any stage indicated that out of the 4,000 farms that were seized from white farmers, 2,000 are lying destitute and in ruins. Does he see a role for those white farmers who have had their land seized in perhaps looking after that land again or does he see that land being reinstated to them? I would like to hear his ideas, because their expertise and energy could rejuvenate those farms.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman; in fact, in the example in Tanzania that I gave, two or three of the farms were taken back on long leases by the farmers who had developed them in the first place.