Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Convention on Genocide

Debate between Tony Lloyd and Jim Shannon

Thursday 7th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd]

I will pass the Minister’s words on to the hon. Member; I think we would all agree on that.

On a happier note, we meet today to celebrate the fact that it is now some 75 years since two important universal documents appeared. The universal declaration of human rights was brought into being on 10 December 1948, and, of course, there was the equivalent declaration on genocide. I shall not trespass on to the genocide declaration, because my identical twin, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will speak on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Not completely identical.

[Tony Lloyd]

Some identical twins differ more than others; that is all I will say. Nevertheless, he will speak on that declaration with great knowledge.

The only thing that I will say about the genocide declaration is that it is sometimes very narrowly interpreted as being concerned solely with the partial extermination—the killing—of populations when, in fact, it is much broader than that. It is very important both in the way that the public perceive it and in creating a legal base for many other activities. I will begin by saying what a tremendous thing it was that the United Nations was able to bring that together. It was very much influenced by Eleanor Roosevelt, the spouse of President Roosevelt. It was particularly important because the world had just lived through the most astonishing atrocities: the dehumanisation of the individual, with six million Jews killed in the death camps along with untold numbers of gypsies, gay people and Slavs. Even though those were Hitler’s evil crimes, it is, perhaps, worth quoting Stalin, who said that one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. That chilling comment almost summarises what took place during the second world war and how those in the generation that brought into being the universal declaration were able instead to say, “No, we are not prepared to accept that; each human being is valid in their own right”.

The preamble to the universal declaration of human rights says:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.

That is the rights of “all members”, without consideration of gender or any other of what we would now regard as protected characteristics. In that context, this was a major change in attitude to the concentration on the individual.

As a slightly barbed comment, I will just say that we even heard in the main Chamber recently a Minister talking about the situation in Gaza and Palestine and saying that the killing of Palestinians was a “by-product”. That may have been an infelicitous use of words, but it is the kind of verbal usage that we must be very careful to guard against, because the life of every individual must be treated as being valid, which is exactly what the universal declaration of human rights reminds us of.

Of course, in this era we can ask, “Has the universal declaration been a success or a failure?” Its level of aspiration is extraordinary: prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex or religion; the right to life and liberty; the prohibition of slavery; prohibition of torture; prohibition of arbitrary arrest, detention and exile; the right to a fair trial; freedom of religion; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly and association; the right to work, which interestingly includes the right to equal pay for equal work and the right to form or join a trade union; and the right to education.

Referring back to equal pay for equal work, it took another two and a half decades before our country even legislated on that issue, when Barbara Castle brought in the equal pay legislation. However, the universal declaration of human rights was developed back in the 1940s, so this profound declaration established the principle of equal pay for equal work.

If we look across the nations of the world, it is not that difficult to be dismayed in this era by the breaching of the commitments that many countries have made to the universal declaration of human rights. I will run through some of those countries; I know that other hon. Members will have other countries that they prefer to talk about.

Let us take the situation in Syria. A terrible war has taken place there, and now 2.4 million children have no access to education and 55% of Syrians are food-insecure. Both of those things are in contravention of articles of the declaration.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, we know about the unlawful killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Ankara. That still screams out as an abuse by the Saudi authorities. And of course Raif Badawi is a Saudi blogger and activist who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for creating an online forum for public debate, and he now faces a 10-year travel ban after his release.

In Iran, the debate about the right of a woman to choose whether or not to wear the hijab, or the scarf was put to the test by the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. She died in police custody after being severely beaten and tortured. That led to literally millions of people protesting to challenge the Iranian regime’s actions. The result was that 19,000 people were arrested and 551 people were killed.

Oddly, of course, while the Iranians want to dictate that women should wear the veil or scarf in certain circumstances, in France the hijab is banned under certain circumstances, in contravention of these rights that I am discussing.

Russia is now a major abuser of rights. In the Bucha massacre—let us say genocide—in Ukraine, 450 people were murdered, and mass rape and torture took place. In addition, 16,000 Ukrainian children have been kidnapped; only 300 of them have been returned from Russia or, possibly, Belarus. There is also the case of Arshak Makichyan, a climate activist who is charged with terrorism; he has also been stripped of his Russian citizenship and left stateless.

In Serbia, we know that the attacks in northern Kosovo, including the so-called Banjska attack in October this year, were planned by armed Serbian militants, but they were almost certainly organised by Milan Radoičić, who has strong links to the Serbian president. In Serbia, of course, they continue to deny the genocide that took place in a previous era.

On a different continent, in the Philippines unlawful killings have been carried out under the war on drugs, which was launched by former President Duterte. It is believed that maybe over 6,000 people were killed during that period. I met a Filipino priest this week who cannot return to the Philippines because he would be charged by an army officer who wanted to indict him for the criticisms he made of that army officer.

I could go on, with many more cases in Colombia. We know that 182 killings of human rights and environmental defenders took place there in the previous calendar year. There is legislation to protect those defenders, but it is not implemented. Impunity is a major problem.

I will not go through every country in the world, but I want to touch on one or two others. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, war has been endemic for many years: mineral wealth is stolen by the DRC’s neighbours, but routine torture of its citizens also takes place. I met an asylum seeker this week who was granted asylum and now lives in this country as a refugee. In Zimbabwe, arbitrary arrest takes place. In Mali, the Malian and allied security forces have been implicated in hundreds of unlawful killings. There is also no doubt that in India, systematic discrimination against and stigmatisation of religious and other minorities, particularly Muslims, is endemic. In January, photographs of 100 Muslim women, including journalists and activists, were displayed on an app that said they were for sale, in order to humiliate and intimidate them; in October, police in Gujarat publicly flogged Muslim men accused of disrupting a Hindu festival; and in Indian-occupied Kashmir, the actions of the Indian authorities are outrageous. Those very often slip through the net of things to which we are able to pay attention.

I cannot fail to mention the situation at the moment in the middle east with Israel and Gaza. The attacks on Jewish women and the level of brutality meted out by Hamas scream out against everything we believe in. We need to condemn Hamas and the activists who perpetrated those attacks. Equally, however, I have to condemn the actions of the Israeli forces when we see the denial of food and water and of power to hospitals, which, again, are in breach of Israel’s convention obligations. Across the world, there is a pattern of abuse that is both tragic and, perhaps more legalistically, in gross contempt of those countries’ obligations.

The challenges come closer to those who were the driving forces for the universal declaration. The United States is not free of criticism. We have seen people arrested without charge and without process in Guantanamo Bay, for example. Again, the world ought to pay attention to that. In the United States, the right to health is rationed by the power of the dollar, so the poor do not have access to their declaration rights to health. The death penalty—both the so-called legal death penalty and the death penalty sometimes at the hands of the police and other forces—is also something that shames America.

In case people think I am ignoring our own country, we have not ratified the protection for migrant women under the Istanbul convention, for example. We really need to begin to move on that. We have made laws that allow us to strip individuals of their citizenship, leaving them stateless. That cannot be right and is contrary to convention rights. The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 will almost certainly come before the European Court of Human Rights—it needs to do so—because it offers de facto an amnesty from prosecution for the most serious crimes of murder and unlawful killing. Last night, we heard the Home Secretary’s view that he could declare by statute Rwanda to be a safe country. I remind Members that the United States State Department described Rwanda as a country whose human rights breaches include unlawful killing and the use of cruel and discriminatory policies, including torture. By any standards that does not make Rwanda, even by statute, a safe country.

Debt in Africa

Debate between Tony Lloyd and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to speak in today’s debate. I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for leading the debate. We are all here because we have a passion for foreign affairs, and it is great to support him today and I congratulate him on how he has set the scene. It is also a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the second time in recent days, as she spoke before me in the COP28 debate last Thursday. I recognise that she has a deep interest and passion, shown through her work with Christian Aid, CAFOD and WaterAid and some of her other projects. I am pleased to follow her in particular because with all that depth of knowledge comes a contribution that makes the debate even more salient and interesting for us. I thank her for that as well.

There is no doubt that the covid pandemic had a profoundly negative impact on Africa’s sovereign debt situation. It has been stated that some 22 countries are either in debt distress or at high risk. That has meant that African Governments are struggling more to pay the debt incurred. Countries such as Mozambique and Zimbabwe were already in debt—and indeed, Malawi. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who will shortly speak for the SNP, has over the years that I have known him always spoken about Malawi and the strong relationships that he and his constituency have with that country. Those things are important when we discuss the matters under consideration today.

Research has shown that as of August 2022, countries in Africa owed the UK a total of £2,758 million, which accounts for 56% of all debts owed to the UK, with Sudan’s the highest. It is important to note that debt is not necessarily a bad thing in itself and can help with economic development. I say that because the increase in debt in the early 2000s was accompanied by a higher level of economic development in Africa. There is a history and I say that because I want to have it on record that it is not all doom and gloom. If we look back through history, we will see that countries were able to address the debt issue and grow accordingly. Sometimes, we have a duty to try and encourage those countries and work with them to get them out of a bad patch.

I was talking to the hon. Member for Glasgow North, and as I sat listening to the hon. Member for Slough’s contribution, I was reminded of the story in Matthew 25 where the master travels into a far-off country. Mr Vickers, you will know the story and probably everybody in the Chamber will know it. The master gives his three servants five talents, two talents and one talent. He comes back and the guy who had the five talents has made them into 10, the guy who had two has made them into four and we know the story of the one who did not invest his money and work hard.

The reason why I tell the story is because that is the Africa of the 2000s. Today, I believe that we in the western world have a duty to try to get them out of these bad times, to give them the advice and assistance they need, and to give them experience. We cannot just —I say this genuinely—pursue somebody and say, “We must get your debt” because that will lead to more debt for them and even higher levels of poverty, so I use the biblical story of Matthew 25 to illustrate in a small way, and hopefully in a strong way, what it means to help others.

According to the World Bank’s debt sustainability analysis, nine African countries were in debt distress and unable to fulfil their repayment requirements as of the end of September 2023. A further 15 African countries were at high risk of debt distress, with another 14 at moderate risk. If it were up to me—I am not the person to do it, so I look to the Minister and the Government to take on this task—I would speak to each of those countries individually. There has to be a two-way dialogue, whereby we can discuss how we manage debt repayments and help countries to grow at the same time.

None of us is a stranger to the impact that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had on our ability to afford things and get our debt under control. I have constituents —indeed, I expect all Members do—who are still coping with the effects and struggling to regain control of their finances, especially when it comes to paying for gas, oil and electricity. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is causing a rise in the price of commodities, particularly food and gas, and the war is also disrupting food supply chains, which especially affects people in Africa.

Between 2010 and 2021, external debt servicing payments in Africa more than quadrupled, growing at over 60 times the pace of average fiscal revenues. In discussing how much debt, and by what rate, it should be paid back, we must show compassion for a country’s social and financial situation. There has to be realism about how much money can be paid back and the rate of repayment. Regardless of whether that means restructuring loans or helping them to balance or grow their economy, we should be trying to do it. For example, there must be repayment options for countries with negative human rights and social considerations.

Strengthening debt management policies to deal with repayment issues through Governments is one of the best ways to enable the stable payback of debts. If paying back will ultimately plunge a state into further demise and poverty, I do not believe that is the right way to do it. We have to find a better solution. I am not just saying that for the sake of it; if we want to recoup debts, we have to work with countries to make that happen.

The economic consequences of the covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have undermined the ability of many African nations to service their sovereign debt. Consideration must be given to that, to human rights abuses and to a nation’s ability to pay back its debt. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, and we as a nation should continue to be supportive to all those struggling, especially through aid. I know the Minister is compassionate and understands what we are asking for, but when it comes to dealing with the debt of African nations and others, there has to be a sense of realism and real compassion in order to try to get them out the other side. By doing so, we will help them contribute to their future. At the end of the day, it is surely about their future. Let us get it right.

[Tony Lloyd]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

Thank you. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on introducing this debate. It is timely. I think we all know that the crisis in Africa is real. We—as a world, not simply as a country—need now to address that. I would like to start quite a long time ago, rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). When we look back over the history of the debate around indebtedness—to “break the chains” and all those phrases that used to trip off our tongues about the need for change—I believed that the world would be very different.

I want to relate something from around 30 years ago. I went to the funeral of a very young child in Mozambique. The baby died because the mother simply could not feed that baby. It was shocking at the time to see a baby denied the nutrition that I would expect for my own grandchildren, for my constituents and for our world. At the time, I would have said, “It will change.” I would have said that we would move down the path of debt relief. Had we had this debate 30 years ago—we probably did have it—we would have been told, “Don’t worry: with a combination of looking carefully and kindly at debt management, at the transmission of technical aid and assistance and at the growth of trade, the world will be very different.”

Well, the world is very different: it is worse for those in Africa. In practical terms, the little baby from all those years back, whom I talked about, is now replicated by many others. Debt is an enslavement of the generation to come, and that is, of itself, something that we ought to rail against. How can a child be born into the enslavement that debt causes? My hon Friends have given different accounts of debt, and we can probably argue about the figures. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) used a particular figure, but the figure I have about the GDP-to-debt ratio is that debt will now be something of the order of 60% of GDP across sub-Saharan Africa. Whether that is exactly right or wrong almost does not matter. It matters in general terms—we can talk trillions or billions of dollars or pounds—but debt impinges on the quality, the reality and the possibility of life of millions of people across the African continent. It is at the human level that debt matters.

If we look at the battle against poverty, the battle against poor health, the battle for education, the battle to create the health services and the battle around climate change, we are losing those battles. We are losing them in this generation—at the moment—and we have to change. We have to change in a particular way, because, at some point, we have to make our minds up and say whether we are prepared to create a very different relationship: the indebted no longer as clients of those who hold the debt but, instead, as partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough made some very profound points about this.

If we are not a partner to African nations and the people of Africa, we lose battles such as climate change, which is our common battle together. It would be remarkable for Africans to know that we are losing it together, because they make so little contribution to the problems that we have all caused around climate change. African nations as a whole are insignificant at the moment, although an Africa of the future, if not helped through transition to those climate change-consistent policies, will potentially be a major producer of greenhouse gases. We should therefore be partners, but if we are going to be partners, we have to be meaningful about what debt really means.

Those who were in the Chamber earlier heard the international development Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) make a very good series of statements on the White Paper. I welcome that White Paper, but there is a challenge that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) has to take back to the Prime Minister and others. It is not enough to print the words in the White Paper; we need the political will to translate that into national action in the UK and international action. On national action in the UK, when I looked into our history of debt relief, the only figures I could come up with showed that the UK’s spending on debt over the last 10 years or so has been £44 million. That is absolutely insignificant against the scale of the problem. We have to do more by way of debt forgiveness, but not simply on our own. We have to be a part of that global coalition that challenges debt and looks at debt restructuring in a real and rational way.

We have to look, for example, at Zambia and the number of people who have evidenced the situation there. Zambia could not come to an agreement, partly because it was the private debtholders who caused the crisis there. Zambia then offered to pay them some 73 cents on the dollar, compared with 55 cents on the dollar for intergovernmental loans. That was a massively bigger rate of return for the private investors, even though they charged massively higher interest rates on their debt. Bear in the mind that the reason for charging higher interest rates is relevant to risk. They put the risk premium in, but having put the risk premium in, they then wanted to be paid a superabundant return on their investment. The reason that failed is that it was inconsistent with the G20 common framework, which said that there had to be a rough equivalence between Government and private debtholders. That is right; there should be that kind of equivalence. We have to be in this together.

A challenge for the Minister is this: are this Government prepared? As a lot of that debt is operated through UK law, it is in our capacity to ensure that that debt, which is factored through the City of London and so on, is managed in a way that says to private debtholders that they have to pay their fair share of debt forgiveness and debt relief, if we are genuinely going to restructure on these issues.

We can make a change. I may not have been able to give hope to the mother of the child I talked about before, as I do not think I would have been so bold as even to say to her that something could be better at that stage of her life. Perhaps I would have said to other people that the world can change, and it can change for the better. Let us ensure that we can do it in this generation. Let us ensure that now is the time.

This has to be a political priority, and I believe my party will take this on board. I hope that in a year’s time or thereabouts we will be sat around having this debate again, and we will be sat on different sides of this little horseshoe. It will be about political will. As I have said to the Minister, the challenge is whether the political will is there from the Prime Minister. Is there the political will to say that the decision to cut the development assistance in the way this nation did took us in the wrong direction? Is the political will there to raise those very powerful points, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East did, about the history of post-colonial Africa?

Even now, we subsidise, for example, Rwanda and Uganda in terms of their education and health service. That is the right thing to do. In turn, however, the armies of those two countries have been part of the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which of course is then shipped over to the west, where it is paid not at a value-added rate, but at the market rate. Who controls the market? It is not the producers of those rare earth minerals that we take from African soil.

We need to think not simply about debt relief, but about the bigger picture and how we alter the terms and conditions of trade and exploitation, which our system is part of. I do not say that in any sense of whipping myself; I say it rationally, because if we are going to make that change, we have to think about that.

I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I have always been puzzled by the parable of the stewards. I always felt it was little unkind on the perhaps slightly less competent steward with his one talent. I never quite understood why he should be treated so badly, because clearly there was a steward who thought he was doing the best—he buried the talent in the ground, and that talent did not lose any value in that process.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Tony Lloyd]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to just let me finish. He thought he was being a good steward. What he lacked was the technical awareness that would have allowed him to invest in whatever—perhaps rare earths or, in those days, fine wine for weddings. In that sense, if we are going to face the challenges together, we have to take that stewardship process. Technical assistance matters enormously.

[Jim Shannon]

I am not smarter than anyone else, biblically, physically or emotionally. I think the story of the parable is about those who use their talents wisely, and the steward who received five talents used them wisely. The comparison I made was with the economic decisions made by African countries back in 2000. When they did it wisely, their economies grew. Use talents wisely—the five and the two—and the economy will grow. Those who do not use their talents and hide them are not being fair to themselves, their families, or indeed their countries. The point I am trying to make, very gently, is that they could do better.

[Tony Lloyd]

I agree. Perhaps I should not have picked up on the parable. It is just that I do rail a little bit against the prosperity gospel. It is not my style of Christianity. Compassion is part of what we should be about, and it has to be a part of what we are talking about here today.

I will finish with this. Part of that compassion is that we need to restructure debt and increase trade, but we also need to recognise the capacity to ensure that the steward with the single talent really did need assistance to do the things that the hon. Member for Strangford is talking about, to invest wisely. We need to invest in education and in the technologies that can allow us to challenge climate change in Africa as well as here in the UK, in Europe, in China, and even possibly in the post-Trumpian United States of America—who knows? We have to work together, because in the end this is not about simply asking us all to be kind to each other. It is about a common interest of what kind of world we want to live in. Yes, this is a tremendously important debate we are having today. I hope the Minister will begin to respond in a positive way to the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and others have raised.

UK-Andean Trade Agreement: Human Rights

Debate between Tony Lloyd and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights and the UK-Andean Trade Agreement.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. This debate concerns human rights and the UK’s trade agreement with the Andean countries of Ecuador, Peru and Colombia. For the benefit of the Ecuadorians present, Ecuador is not one of the countries of concern to me; Peru—though only a little—and Colombia are the objects of my concern.

It is commonly agreed that any trade agreement nowadays should go beyond merely the management of trade flows between different countries. The then Foreign Secretary, who is now the Justice Secretary, said in January 2021 that

“we shouldn’t be engaged in free trade negotiations with countries abusing human rights”.

That is clear and unequivocal. The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), told the Commons last July that

“our commitment to human rights is a foundation stone of our foreign policy… We will ensure that we use our trade relationships not just to export products and services but to export our principles and values.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 800.]

That is a strong, powerful statement.

Even in their report to the House on the trade agreement with the Andean countries, the Government stated:

“The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally and this will continue as we leave the EU. We want to ensure economic growth, development and labour and environmental protection go hand-in-hand.”

There we have it: human rights, labour standards and environmental protection should all be part of any modern trade agreement.

It gets a little better; there are strong statements in the agreement itself. Article 1 states:

“Respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights…underpins the internal and international policies of the Parties. Respect for these principles constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.”

Article 269 commits both parties to

“the promotion and effective implementation in its laws and practice…of internationally recognised core labour standards”.

Sadly, there is no mechanism to enforce that. There are no sanctions and no discussion of what we do when things go wrong. There is an acceptance that we should have domestic advisory groups on both sides to represent civil society, trade unions, employers and so on, which could monitor adherence to labour standards and human rights commitments. I shall be asking the Minister where we are with our own domestic advisory group in the UK.

I will start with Peru, which in many ways is an easier case. Peru generates concern around environmental standards. Back in 2017, Peruvian civil society representatives and their European counterparts filed a complaint before the European Commission against the Peruvian Government for failure to comply with environmental and labour obligations under the free trade agreement with the EU, was then the guiding trade agreement. The Peruvian Government continue to fail to establish clear objectives and indicators to monitor progress on tackling these big environmental issues, so there is concern about Peru.

Colombia is a country I know reasonably well. It had a horrendous civil war, which in a way continues. It reached, in part, a negotiated solution. However, that has not stopped the huge erosion of basic human rights, including the right to life and others.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman often brings human rights issues to Westminster Hall about which he and I are on the same page, as we are today. While respect for democratic principles, fundamental human rights and the rule of law should be an essential part of any agreement, does he not agree that we need not simply words but actions? We should not continue to trade with those whose flagrant disregard for and abuse of human rights is prevalent and persevering. I believe that he will now illustrate, in addressing what has happened in Colombia—land grabs and murders of peasant people—that those in authority there have a disregard for life itself.

[Tony Lloyd]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s support. He is absolutely right. I will continue on exactly that theme.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has information about 196 human rights defenders —those who protect the population more generally and go out of their way to act as a human shield—who were killed in 2021. They faced increasing death threats in the aftermath of protests last year. In the first 24 days of this year, 10 human rights defenders were murdered. The International Trade Union Confederation rates Colombia as one of the worst countries in the world for workers’ rights and documents 22 trade unionists who have been murdered in the last year. Colombia is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be active in a trade union.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Veterinary Agreement

Debate between Tony Lloyd and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate. The very point that he is making is one that is obvious to us. Certainly for my party, including my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who is sitting here beside me, the problem is one not only of cost but of bureaucracy, and people are just turned off. In the past they had a simple system allowing them to bring stuff from the UK mainland to Northern Ireland, but suddenly there are all these difficulties. One quick example is the seeds sector for plants and flowers. If someone wants to buy a wee packet of seeds, there is an added £10 or £15 charge, which is ridiculous for a seed packet that costs about £2.50.

[Tony Lloyd]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. It is possible to transport used farm equipment without the need for many checks, and yet a packet of seeds, which is produced in a controlled way, has to have that bureaucracy and those checks, so he is right to be concerned. The central point is that is the bureaucracy that is frustrating for businesses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

There is a question for the Minister about the uncertainty. Traders have told us that the trader support service is working well. I am sure that is true, but they also make the point that an education process is needed for producers in Great Britain. How far along are we in securing that process of public education?

As I have said, the damage is already here and now. The sheep industry in Northern Ireland, for example, faces scrapie controls, which means that it will be three years before some sheep farmers can sell their goods into the GB market. Cattle breeders also face uncertainty because of the new regulatory regime. That is not because they move cattle—generally they move fertilised products and suchlike—but because they cannot plan for the future. That is disastrous for the agricultural industry.

The chief executive of Lynas Foodservice, the biggest food processor in Northern Ireland, has pointed out that there are eight different bureaucratic processes to bring mozzarella from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. He estimates that it will cost the business some £50,000 a year to service that requirement. It can do that because it is big, but a small producer cannot compete with that, so supply is going to be a real issue.

The Conservative manifesto was clear—I hope there is still common ground on this—that there would be no

“compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”

I hope the Minister will repeat that commitment, because I know it is the mantra that the Government insist on. If that is true, it should be very easy for us to move towards an SPS veterinary agreement. The CBI has talked about the need for a

“bespoke, modern UK-EU Veterinary Agreement”,

specific for Northern Ireland within the context of the protocol. That is supported by Retail NI, the Ulster Farmers Union and every party represented in Stormont. Oddly, it is one of the things that everyone agrees on—as well as that there should be no amnesty for those who committed murder during the troubles. It would be a great unifier if it was not such a negative thing. We should be able to get that agreement.

The Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in February that the Government want to work on a veterinary agreement so that they can secure the flow of goods and improve the forms. Amen to that. The EU Vice-President told us that a veterinary agreement was “on the table”. Everybody is in favour of it, so what is stopping us? One thing that is stopping us—and the Minister has seen a way to address this—is the lack of trust and the lack of good faith that has been built up. The public diplomacy and rhetoric have been massively unhelpful. It is not something political or a shouting game, but that is what it has become. That has been very unhelpful and it has led to cynicism.

The Minister might want to say that the real ambition is to achieve a trade deal with the United States—not because that would compensate for the trade we have lost with the EU, but because it would allow the Prime Minister to stand up with the big banner headline and say, Donald Trump-style, “I have done a great trade deal”. That is not enough, however, if the price is lower food standards coming into our market, and it is certainly not enough if it prejudices our capacity to deliver a veterinary agreement that could make things easier. Ironically, even in the context of a US trade deal, President Biden has said that he sees no barrier to there being a veterinary agreement between the EU and the UK to protect the situation in Northern Ireland and the protocol.

There are two different models that we can look at. The first is probably a variation of the New Zealand deal, which I know is something that the Government have thought about. It has advantages. I have talked about between 4% and 5% of goods being subject to physical checks in Dublin. If the New Zealand example worked for us, that figure would go down to 2% and documentary checks would go from 30% to 10%. Those are still barriers, though, and the Minister should not underestimate that they would be real for businesses.

The other, much more attractive option is what the EU calls dynamic alignment. In actual fact, we are aligned at the moment. We have not moved our food standards, and nor has the EU. What people have talked about is the possibility of a temporary agreement, which could of course have a guillotine and could be terminated if we sign up to the Australian deal, the New Zealand deal or the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership. We could have a guillotine and move on, but let us have that temporary veterinary agreement, which would allow alignment and enable us to get rid of all the form-filling and other problems. That is the real thing we should play for. So, I ask the Minister, why not?

Well, to a degree we know why not—it is because Lord Frost has ruled it out, saying that he has grave doubts about how long it would take. Actually, that is nonsense—and I hope that the Minister in turn will also tell Lord Frost that it is nonsense—because it would take almost no time. It is the basis on which we were operating 12 months ago, and it would simply mean reverting to a reality already known to businesses in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the EU.

If we can get this issue right, there is something enormous to be gained, because it would unlock not only the Northern Ireland protocol but the issues experienced GB businesses trading with the rest of the EU. That is something big and really important, and it would stop the erosion of trade.

My final point is that we need to move on to some form of trusted trader scheme. It ought to be easily achievable. It is not magic; it is a very easy thing to achieve. Of course it requires work but, two years on, that work should already have been done.

Perhaps what we really need is a trusted negotiator scheme, and perhaps that would not involve the current Prime Minister. That may sound trivial but this is a serious point, because as long as people play politics with this issue, they will get it wrong. If we can consider the needs of the people of Northern Ireland and the needs of businesses in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can begin to come up with a real solution. It takes a little bit of imagination—not very much—but it takes a lot of political will, and that is what the Minister has to persuade us exists in the Government today.

Housing Supply

Debate between Tony Lloyd and Jim Shannon

Thursday 13th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am told that I ought to declare an interest for the record: as the outgoing Mayor of Greater Manchester, I had responsibility for strategic planning and strategic housing.

I strongly welcome this debate and the opportunity to contribute to it. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) might be either glad or dismayed to know that I probably have a considerable measure of agreement with him in both the way he set out his case and the specific points he made. However, there was perhaps one sin of omission and one of commission.

I will deal with the omission first. I will quote Pete Redfern, the chief executive of Taylor Wimpey, who made a strong point in a review that he carried out last year, in which he said that

“it is vital that policy focuses…on all tenures”,

because the impact of the rented sector on the home ownership sector and vice versa is still very powerful, and we must not neglect that. We must also recognise—in fairness, the Minister’s predecessor had begun to take it on board—that there are some people for whom it will almost certainly never be possible to join the home ownership queues, and we must ensure that there is an adequate provision of high-quality affordable social housing.

I will pick up at an early stage the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about ensuring that our councils have adequate control, because one of the realities at the moment is that far too often developers win on planning appeal; he is right in that regard. However, such wins are massively against the interests of the rational planning of our communities, particularly in areas of dramatic growth of the kind he described in his own constituency. We must ensure that our local authorities have the capacity not only to determine where new homes are located, but to ensure that with that new housing comes the infrastructure to create liveable communities rather than just housing units. That is a very important point.

We have heard some powerful comments from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) about the reality of housing on the ground. We have a housing crisis in this country. It may not affect everybody—it does not affect me as an individual homeowner—but for members of my own family and certainly for many of my constituents there is obviously a crisis.

There is a homelessness crisis and a crisis for those who are inadequately homed—the “disguised” homeless —as several hon. Members have recognised. We are not seeing a high number of new homes built; we now have a crisis of building. One of the most dramatic features has been the major decline since 2010 in the number of people under 40 who are homeowners, because nearly a million people in that age group have disappeared from home ownership. I recognise that it is a moving age group, but that decline is still significant, showing that things are not as they ought to be.

The Government have to take some responsibility for this situation, including for a White Paper that, frankly, is not fit for purpose. I think that anybody who examines housing over any period recognises that short-term fixes simply cannot and will not work. We really need some consensus on both house building and house supply over about a 25-year or 30-year period. We ought to look with ambition at building 250,000 new homes ever year, which is the kind of figure that over time can make a material difference to supply. If we do not do that, the crisis that exists in London, and increasingly in cities such as York, will become the norm throughout our country. We must have an ambitious and radical move on house building.

[Jim Shannon]

It is important that we underline the type of accommodation that is needed in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise—I think the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) referred to this—that those who are getting older need specific accommodation? In many places there does not seem to be much provision for that specific accommodation. Does he feel that it needs to be a central part of the Government’s strategy as our population grows older?

[Tony Lloyd]

The hon. Gentleman brings me on to an important point. One thing that we must begin to recognise is that we do not actually have a housing market; we have many different segments of housing, all of which have different features. Of course we must recognise the needs of vulnerable people and older people—older people are not necessarily vulnerable, but they have different housing needs. Those needs must be recognised in a long-term housing strategy, and we must ensure that provision is across the piece.

I have the current figures on new starts. In their 2015 manifesto, the Government committed to building some 200,000 starter homes over the Parliament, which is 40,000 a year. Quite frankly, the figures are so dismal and so insignificant that we are failing not simply to hit the statistical targets, but failing real families and real people.

[Tony Lloyd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have got to have a radical shift in how we deliver things.

In the few moments I have at my disposal, I want to talk about some of the things we have to do. I applaud a number of comments made by Members from all parts of the Chamber. London is probably a special case, but there certainly has to be an examination of the capacity for people to move speculatively into the London housing market. They might not simply be overseas investors; in some areas it might be about recognising that institutional investors, or even private investors, have a detrimental impact on the capacity to house our population. A real issue has been raised about London in particular and the position of people on low pay in public services. We want them to work in our inner-city schools, but frankly they cannot afford to pay the rents or mortgages considered to be the norm.

When we still have the concept that a £450,000 property is affordable, we are living in the realms of fantasy. The traditional lending ratio that building societies offer is 4.5:1. By definition, that means that someone needs a family income of £100,000 for that affordable property. Most of us would not regard that as being the income of the people we want to target affordable housing towards.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Lloyd]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not; the debate is short and I know that the Minister will want some time to respond.

We have to look at the question of land availability in a determined way. Some of that is about the cost of land. One issue we all face is that if land is valued at the post-development price, the landowner is the institution or person who creams off all the excess profit, even though the work is not put in by the owner, but possibly by the developer or the commonweal. We have to find some way of transferring the capacity for that value added into provision for the commonweal, whether through the public sector or more generally. We also have to look at the fact that in many of our cities—London, Manchester and northern cities generally—a lot of our brownfield sites are in need of enormous investment to bring them up to a level that is fit for building. Remediation is not just a fancy word; it is something that has to be invested in to make land usable.

We need to recognise that we have a massive skills shortage. There may be an ambition to increase housing supply, but we have a crisis looming with the ageing workforce in construction. The Minister needs to work with other Departments to ensure that there is some rational planning for the future. Frankly, it is not obvious that there is any sense of rationality or planning. If the two could be joined together, we may be in with a chance. We urgently need to tackle that skills shortage. If we do not and we have any kind of housing boom, we will once again see the development of the cowboy builder or prices going through the roof.

If we are to provide starter homes, we must ensure that they are starter homes in perpetuity. The discount needs to stay with the property, because otherwise we will never be able to guarantee, in our overheated housing market, that people will continue to be able to get on the housing ladder as first-time buyers. We need to ensure that Help to Buy for first-time buyers is realistic. Some of the suggestions that the right hon. Member for Wokingham put forward are well worth considering. We have to have something that allows first-time buyers to get into the property market. As Members have said, often the problem is not the cost of funding the mortgage—the mortgage is sometimes considerably cheaper than the rental alternative—but the deposit. The accumulation of the deposit is virtually impossible for many people, and we need to do something about that.

Where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is on the concept of right to buy. We have to look at one-to-one replacement. We have to ensure a consistent supply of housing in the social sector or under council ownership. There is nothing immoral about different types of tenure. We need to be tenure-blind in how we plan our future, but if we are tenure-blind, we have to ensure that the resources are there for that tenure.

The last point I will make, simply because of time, is this: I appeal to the Minister to look carefully at the role of social landlords. Social landlords in my city region told me that if they are given the opportunity to develop tenure-blind, they can increase the supply of new homes that they put on the market. The significant increase that they could provide would make a material difference. The artificial restrictions on social landlords are simply not helpful.

I once again congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing an important debate. We have to continue the debate, because we are scratching at the surface. We have a long way to go if we are to move to that sense of having a long-term vision for housing. Without that long-term vision, we will fail this generation and we will continue to fail future generations. This is an important debate, but it must continue.