International Men’s Day

Debate between Jeremy Lefroy and David Simpson

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I totally agree; the hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was about to say. As he says, there is clear evidence that men are less likely than women to seek help when they are sick. That is certainly true of me. I have sometimes been reluctant to go to the doctor in case it turned out that I had something serious, as if the very act of seeking help would make it more serious than it was. I do not think it is just me. I did not want to confront the possibility of having a serious illness.

Good public health work has been done to ease people’s fears of seeking medical help if they think something is wrong—I think the NHS recognises that—but there is a greater need for health education, starting at school, to promote healthy lifestyles and to encourage people to consult their doctor early if they believe something is not quite right. I have recent personal experience; a close friend, who was not yet 50, had his cancer caught too late because, due to the nature of his job, he understandably attributed the symptoms to work-related stress when they were in fact much more serious.

Men should not worry that they will waste valuable NHS resources by going to their GP because they have unusual discomfort in their stomach, a persistent cough or problems passing water. Any NHS professional would prefer to allay their patient’s fears by showing that the problem is not serious—or, if it is serious, to catch it early and hence greatly improve the prospects of cure.

We have a serious problem with mental health among men and boys. Some 76% of all suicides in the UK last year were among men. That is 4,287 lives lost to suicide—more than two and a half times the number of deaths on the UK’s roads. The suicide rate has fallen in the last 35 years, and I welcome that, but the fall has been greater among women than men; it has fallen by 50% for women, which is wonderful, but only 14% for men. Suicide is the leading cause of death of men between 20 and 49.

The Samaritans commissioned research on the issues surrounding male suicide, which I will go into in some detail because they are so important. It found that men from the lowest social class who live in the most deprived areas are up to 10 times more likely to end their lives by suicide than those in the highest social class from the most affluent areas. This is undoubtedly a matter of inequality. Men in mid-life are most at risk, which surprised me. Men compare themselves against a masculine gold standard, to which having a job and providing for the family are essential, especially for working-class men. Men—I speak here from personal experience—are far less positive than women about getting formal emotional support for their problems, and when they do it is at the point of crisis. There is also a well-known link between unemployment and suicide; unemployed people are two to three times more likely than those in work to die by suicide, which is why combating unemployment is an absolute moral mission.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. I am sure that he agrees that more needs to be done about the mental health of not just older men but young men. In my constituency, suicides have risen dramatically. The youngest person to commit suicide was 12, and one was 15. More needs to be done to help young people, especially those from deprived areas, who have social difficulties.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I absolutely agree. I will read all six of the Samaritans’ recommendations, because they are so important. The first is to recognise and take on gender and socioeconomic inequalities in suicide risk—to follow the evidence, not the preconceptions. The second is to ensure that suicide prevention policy and practice takes account of men’s beliefs and concerns, and the context of what it is to be a man. The third is to recognise that loneliness is, for men in mid-life, a significant cause of their high risk of suicide, and to enable them to strengthen their social relationships—frankly, women are usually better at doing that than men. The fourth is to ensure explicit links between alcohol reduction and suicide prevention strategies, because often the two are taken apart when they should be much more closely linked. The fifth is to support GPs to recognise the signs of distress in men and ensure that those from deprived backgrounds receive a range of support, not just medication—it seems that men from poorer backgrounds are often given much more medication than counselling and other support. Finally, and very importantly, the sixth recommendation is to provide leadership and accountability at local level, and I congratulate councils who are taking this seriously up and down the country.

I would like to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister on how he believes we can all work together to tackle suicide in all people, and particularly the tragically high rate of male suicide. I have not gone into great detail on some of the excellent initiatives, whether sports initiatives or peer communicators, which perhaps others or the Minister will refer to, but it would be good to hear more about that.

I turn to the access rights of fathers and children. One of the saddest things I have to confront, on an almost weekly basis, in my surgeries, as I am sure all colleagues have, is the fallout from partnerships and marriages that have gone wrong. The problem is almost inevitably one of two: either a father is neglecting his responsibilities to contribute to the maintenance of his children, or father and children are denied access to each other. The causes are complex, especially in cases of the latter, and I am no expert. However, I have no doubt that, in some I have seen, there has been a deliberate attempt to use all means possible to prevent the father from seeing a child or children, just as I have seen cases in which fathers have used all means possible to avoid their responsibilities to contribute to child maintenance.

Developing Countries: Jobs and Livelihoods

Debate between Jeremy Lefroy and David Simpson

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will give an example of that later in my speech, but he is absolutely right. I made a similar point in Monday’s debate in this Chamber on foreign aid expenditure.

What can be done? I shall give several possible solutions. First, let us work with what we have. I shall start with agriculture, because it is at the heart of the economies of most developing countries. It provides most of the work and a considerable share of GDP, Government income and exports. It also provides the basis for local manufacturing. Even in developed economies such as ours, food and drink production is the largest manufacturing sector. Why should that not be the case in developing countries?

Although all countries will of course wish to diversify into other sectors and reduce reliance on agriculture, that is not the same as neglecting agriculture. That mistake has been made far too often in the past, both by Governments and by their aid-funded advisers. I am glad to say that things have changed over the past three decades. Countries such as India and Vietnam, and more recently Ghana, Tanzania and Ethiopia—to name but a few of many—have given much more prominence to agriculture and increased their support of it. The same is true of development agencies, especially the Department for International Development. I welcome that.

Working with what we have in agriculture also means working with the smallholder farmers who are its backbone. When I started to work with smallholder farmers nearly 30 years ago, the view of many was that they were on the way out, and that the future of agriculture was large-scale farming. In fact, they are more important than ever, providing food security even in conflict zones. For example, in the 1970s Angola produced a similar amount of coffee to Uganda, but Angola’s coffee was almost all produced on large estates, while Uganda’s was produced by smallholders. Both countries went through long periods of turbulence. Today, Uganda’s coffee production is the same as it was back then, if not more, but Angola’s coffee production has almost disappeared. Smallholder farmers are incredibly resilient.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has vast experience of developing countries. Does he agree that there needs to be an emphasis on educating young people so that there are links with the business community? He will know that every year in the House there are campaigns to get children in developing countries into education. That would help them on the pathway to jobs, no matter how little.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I agree entirely. I shall address that issue in a moment, because it is vital.

I have a couple of other examples of sectors in which we can work with what we have. Hospitality is important in every developing country. It is about not only international tourism, but looking after people in one’s own country and wider region. Hilton estimates that, if there is proper investment around the world, the hospitality sector alone could create an additional 70 million jobs over the next decade. Apart from agriculture and agricultural processing, construction is very likely to create and sustain jobs and livelihoods in most parts of developing countries. I shall say a little more about that later in my speech. We must also consider local services. Services are often neglected in favour of large manufacturing investments, yet in every town and city, along every main street, one will see service businesses. We need to support and encourage them, because if every service business employed one more person, millions more people would be employed throughout the developing world.

Secondly, not only should we work with what we have, but we must not stand still. Everyone wishes to see a better life for their family. Incomes from agriculture can be improved in many ways. That subject is worth an entire debate in itself, but, to be brief, they include enhanced productivity through better inputs, advice, irrigation, finance, diversification, storage to reduce crop losses, and access to markets and to information about those markets. In other words, that means moving on from subsistence agriculture.

DFID’s recently published conceptual framework on agriculture puts it well. It says that there is

“the assumption that sustained wealth creation and a self-financed exit from poverty depend, in the long-term, on economic transformation and the majority of the rural poor finding productive and better paid employment outside of primary agricultural production”—

note that the framework says primary—

“Despite the need for this transition, agricultural growth and downstream processing and productivity growth are likely to be important, if not essential, as a continued source, if not driver, of growth.”

When I was involved in buying cocoa from smallholder farmers, we saw the price per kilo paid to farmers, and hence their income, rise at least fourfold over two or three years as result of a combination of improved quality, better logistics, a higher world market price and a greater percentage of that price being paid to the farmers. It also depended on having a reliable buyer prepared to take a long-term approach, rather than one driven by short-term trading considerations. The farmers’ improved incomes not only sustained and improved their own livelihoods but created jobs at a tremendous rate. The money stayed in the local economy to support input dealers, schools, clinics, general stores and bars. That, in turn, created jobs in local and national manufacturing and service businesses. I am a believer not in trickle-down economics, but in trickle-up economics, and smallholder agriculture is at the heart of that.

I have concentrated on agriculture, but the need not to stand still applies to all the other sectors I mentioned. In hospitality, training, good-quality service and investment meet the needs of nationals, not just tourists. There is no reason why someone cannot provide an excellent hotel or tourist spot for their own population. They do not need to rely on a few hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of overseas visitors.

Construction jobs can be enhanced through a formal apprenticeship scheme of the kind I mentioned. They can also be supported by placing specific requirements on contractors in large infrastructure projects to employ and properly train local people in their work. That is increasingly happening, but it needs to be extended to the most senior levels of the contract, not just the grassroots workers. Skills are best transferred in the heat of building a major road, bridge, airport or railway line.

Job Creation: Developing Countries

Debate between Jeremy Lefroy and David Simpson

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right. Of course, in Rwanda people would say that they have much further to go. They want to concentrate on developing the skills of their population, and in particular young people. They are looking at, for instance, the IT sector, because Rwanda is a landlocked country without large natural resources, apart from its own people and the beauty of its landscape. As I said, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

High levels of unemployment or underemployment, especially among young people, are a problem in most countries in the world. When we ourselves have a youth unemployment rate approaching 20%, we recognise that this is a shared problem and there may well be—in fact, there should be—shared solutions. It is estimated that 1 billion additional jobs will be needed in the next decade for those who are currently out of work and those who will be coming into work over that time. Throughout my remarks, I shall use the word “job” to include self-employment and work in the informal sector, particularly in agriculture.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. Does he agree that although it is vital that jobs are created—that is what this debate is all about—in order to achieve that for small and large businesses, it is important that the infrastructure of those countries needs to be improved dramatically? Would it be an idea for moneys donated from the United Kingdom to these countries to be focused on certain areas to help to create jobs for young people?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his wise intervention. Later I shall come to the issue of infrastructure—he is absolutely right about that—and give one or two examples of where it has made a huge difference.

To return to the point about the word “jobs” including the informal sector and self-employment, we have to remember that if we define “jobs” too narrowly as those where people enter into paid employment, we will be missing the point. That is a fairly small percentage of the total amount of work available in the world at the moment.

Zimbabwe

Debate between Jeremy Lefroy and David Simpson

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree. DFID and aid agencies that give bilateral and multilateral support can play an important role in supporting infrastructure. I have discussed infrastructure in relation to agriculture, and I would add irrigation to that, but infrastructure for sanitation, health and education is also important.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although it is good to get land into small farms and perhaps to start up the co-operatives again, it is vital to have an incentive on pricing? The prices of products must be right so that those people can make a living and so that things do not fall apart again. DFID needs to consider that aspect and to ensure that there are returns on products, many of which, as he will know from his experience, are excellent.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

That is why I welcome the opening up of agricultural markets in Zimbabwe, which has been one of the most important Government reforms.

The need for rural infrastructure is shown by the figures on maize yields. The area planted to maize in Zimbabwe this year is 1.8 million hectares, which compares with 1.37 million hectares in 2000, but 300,000 fewer tonnes of maize will be produced as yields decline from 1.18 tonnes to 0.74 tonnes per hectare. How can yields be improved? The Select Committee report discusses conservation agriculture, which is supported by the protracted relief programme that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) mentioned. As the report states, Christian Aid recognises that

“DFID’s consistent support to this area despite initial reluctance by other key stakeholders”

has been vital, highlighting that it

“had been particularly beneficial to vulnerable communities”

and that it was

“proven to lift households out of subsistence poverty”.

I congratulate DFID on its support for that programme under both the previous and current Governments and on taking the lead on it.

Conservation agriculture teaches people how better to manage their land and how to get a profitable harvest. According to Christian Aid, it enables households to get at least two, three, five or, in many cases—I could hardly believe this—10 tonnes of maize per hectare. That is quite incredible and I welcome the Select Committee’s recommendation that DFID should explore how conservation agriculture could be extended to other parts of sub-Saharan Africa where it could be used. I also welcome the Government’s positive response to that suggestion and I ask the Minister to ensure that that support continues.

The ordinary people of Zimbabwe have suffered grievously over the years, but they have shown, as many speakers have said, extraordinary resilience and courage. There is no doubt that the country can once again become the agricultural powerhouse that it should be. Proper land reform, not arbitrary seizure and settlement, is an essential part of that, as is effective support to the growing number of smallholder farmers. I welcome the Committee’s report, DFID’s response and the Government’s continuing commitment to the people of Zimbabwe.

Small Businesses

Debate between Jeremy Lefroy and David Simpson

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point that I will address in a moment. I entirely agree with her point about access to finance for new businesses. I conclude that in general, new businesses do not consider approaching a bank because they believe that it will be a waste of time or that they have only a small chance of success.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that one thing that would help small businesses is the removal of bureaucracy and red tape? Small businesses are hands-on businesses and do not have the time to deal with paperwork. I believe that such a move would assist the small business sector.

All hon. Members present in the Chamber will have received letters from different constituents and companies. It is one thing for banks to be prudent in lending, but they are being draconian and that makes it impossible for small businesses to start up. We live in the real world, but the banks do not seem to, and I do not believe that the Government have any influence over them.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman makes two powerful points. The second point is true; as someone involved in small business for many years, I have been on the receiving end of that kind of draconian attitude many times—although not every time, I hasten to add. I am sure that the Minister will want to say something about red tape. I, too, have spent many late hours going through the red tape for my business, after having spent the rest of the day trying to make some money. Whatever the truth—it probably lies somewhere in between all the figures provided—it is clear that a substantial number of SMEs approach banks but do not obtain the funding that they need to maintain or expand their business.

In my constituency, I have seen the difficulty that farmers are finding in business diversification. Money is pouring in to help farmers buy land or get involved in agricultural activities, but they receive a limited response from the banks for the laudable process of rural diversification, which will create more jobs in that area.

It is likely that there are some people not yet in business who wish to start up on their own. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) mentioned, they might find it even harder to obtain that funding, perhaps because they have been made redundant. There might be good reasons for banks to refuse applications, and they must be confident that they will receive their money back. However, anecdotal evidence from my constituents—as, I am sure, from those of all hon. Members in the Chamber—suggests that banks are unwilling to take even the smallest risk if they find it difficult to assess viability, which is often the case with new and young businesses.