Cross-border Crime

Debate between David Simpson and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this timely debate. We have debated this subject before. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has done a report on it, and it has been ongoing for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) used the word “Horlicks”—and that is exactly what this is. It is costing the Exchequer hundreds of millions of pounds. I predict that the Government will introduce this Dow marker, and it will not reduce the problem. That is my prediction, because the tests we have witnessed and those that have been carried out show that it does not work.

I will be brief as I know other Members wish to speak, but I need to put a number of questions to the Minister. Can the Minister or his officials tell us why Dow Chemical Company was not thrown out of the IMS—invitation to make submissions—tendering process for the marker under European law, when in 2013 it was fined $1.1 billion for fraud? It was fined $1.1 billion, yet it is part of the tendering process, and we are about to introduce a dye that comes from that company.

The Minister was asked a question earlier to which we did not get an answer, but perhaps his officials or the representation from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs today can provide the answer: why was this technology awarded to Dow with no roadside test when the other, British recommended company had a roadside test?

A number of years ago—maybe 10—I was asked to pay a visit to South Armagh by a political activist who lives there. He rang me and said, “David, you have raised issues of fuel smuggling. Would you like to see some of them?” I spent the day going around 15 distilleries and seeing their fuel laundering equipment—or whatever the terminology is—and got within 100 metres of Slab Murphy’s house and his laundering facilities. We moved back up the road a mile, on a hill, and the lorries were freely going in and out of Slab Murphy’s facilities, with nothing being done about it—absolutely nothing.

Right up to the present day, no one has been imprisoned for this. The Minister corrected one of my colleagues on the subject of prosecutions, but this is costing the Government and the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. We spoke earlier about the budgets. There is no money in the budgets, and I understand that there are to be further cuts after the general election to try to clear the deficit. There will be issues if that is the case, because we are suffering and the amount being lost to the Revenue every year could be used to build several hospitals.

[Dr McCrea]

Is my hon. Friend talking about the same Slab Murphy whom Gerry Adams described as a decent businessman?

[David Simpson]

Yes, absolutely.

After we had seen the activity I have just described, we reported it to what was then the RUC, and several moves were made to close some of the laundering facilities. These activities are unfair to the ordinary everyday workers and businessmen in Northern Ireland who are doing their best to pay their taxes and keep their businesses going. They are completely above board, yet other individuals are profiting from their activities. That is totally wrong, and it has been going on for far too long.

Whether the Minister has been furnished with all the information or not, the information I am giving him is factual, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will certainly be able to give him a lot more when he winds up the debate. This issue needs to be got right. It has gone on for far too long and it has become a laughing stock. At the beginning of the debate, it was suggested that this arrangement might have been a pay-off for the republicans. When we were talking about the National Crime Agency earlier today, someone in the House remembered that the deal involved 2p to the pound. I would hate to think that any Government had done any kind of deal with republicans and criminals or given them 2p to the pound to keep their mouths shut. It would be a travesty if that were the case. There is something rotten about this whole process and system. There is something wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

[Dr McCrea]

This might be a laughing stock, but it is certainly no joke. This is a very serious matter. Did my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) say that the British-Irish grouping went out on a fact-finding mission and saw 12 of these facilities in operation? If they could see 12 of them operating on that one day, where was HMRC and where were the authorities at the time?

[David Simpson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question. Someone was sleeping on their watch, if indeed they were watching at all.

I have another question for the Minister. Why would the Government not support their own world-leading British science company when its fuel markers are the only IMS-proven indelible markers that are recommended? I want to ask him a further question. Given that the IMS is a joint UK-Republic of Ireland process, why was a single Dow marker IMS awarded when the Government knew that they needed a minimum of two indelible markers? I have asked a series of questions. I do not expect to get the answers today, but it is important that we try to get to the bottom of this.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simpson]

As I have said, time will tell. I think this is going to be an expensive exercise that will be proven in time to be not as effective as the Minister has been led to believe.

[Dr McCrea]

If we are introducing something, surely it must work—millions of pounds will otherwise be lost to the Exchequer. If those millions of pounds are not needed here, I assure hon. Members that they would be very welcome in the coffers of the Northern Ireland Executive, given the deficit we face. Surely this has to work and we have to be sure that it works. We are not doing this on a trial-and-error basis; we have to be sure that we have something that works.

[David Simpson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is correct about that. The matter is too serious for the marker not to work. This situation has been ongoing, and the amount of money that has been lost and wasted over the past 10 to 15 years—or longer—is just horrific. It could have done a lot to help many vulnerable people, not only in Northern Ireland, but on the mainland. We are where we are and time will tell, but I know my colleague will have a few other statistics and figures to give in his winding-up speech.

Government Contracts (SMEs)

Debate between David Simpson and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr McCrea]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That will certainly be part of the effort that I am endeavouring, through the debate, to achieve.

The Government plan for growth published alongside the Budget in March 2011 highlighted a number of policies stated to be of particular benefit to SMEs, including such measures as making it easier for them to access public sector procurement by eliminating the prequalification questionnaire for contracts worth less than £100,000, advertising procurement opportunities on Contracts Finder and setting an aspirational target that a quarter of Government contracts should be awarded to SMEs.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is certainly in the flow today, so it is hard to intervene. As well as action on procurement, does he agree that over the past number of years the Government also promised to speed up payment terms for small companies? A lot of what has been done, however, has been paying lip service. Northern Ireland has improved, but a lot of work remains to be done. Cash flow is vital to small companies if they go for Government contracts.

[Dr McCrea]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and will also deal with that as we continue with the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr McCrea]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. The lack of an up-to-date and modern broadband connection makes it very difficult to get into Government contracts.

To promote the further growth of SMEs, following on from the recommendation in Lord Young’s report, a new scheme was designed to make it simpler for small firms to win public sector contracts, which are estimated to be worth £230 billion a year. In addition, there was a commitment to tackle the late payment of small firms to ensure that those small businesses supplying the public sector and its supply chain were paid at the same time as the large contractors.

In May 2013, Lord Young published “Growing Your Business”, a report on growing micro-businesses following on from his report on entrepreneurship and start-ups published in May 2012. The 2013 report makes a number of policy recommendations for businesses employing fewer than 25 people, including the establishment of a small business charter and, crucially, a

“new ‘single market’ commitment to ensure a simple and consistent approach is taken across public sector procurement.”

In 2012-13, the public sector spent £230 billion on procurement of goods and services, including capital assets, accounting for 34% of total managed expenditure. Of that £230 billion, approximately £38 billion was capital procurement, the rest being current. Of the current procurement, approximately £40 billion is by central Government, £84 billion by local government, £50 billion by the national health service and £13 billion by the devolved Administrations.

Hon. Members will note the public interest in several recent awards of major procurement contracts, which have attracted scrutiny and even criticism from some hon. Members. In the light of the recent difficulties, the Government set themselves a target of procuring 25% of goods and services by value from SMEs by 2015, with the flattering words that such businesses are

“a crucial engine for growth”

as they account for 99.9% of UK businesses.

Research by the FSB reveals that every £1 a public body spends with a small business generates 63p of additional benefit to the economy, compared with 40p of additional benefit when spent with a large business. Although there is much ongoing debate about the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership and whether the UK should remain within its bureaucratic quagmire, the position remains that the Government not only can but should do more to support SMEs in accessing public procurement in compliance with EU diktat.

[David Simpson]

Does my hon. Friend accept that, although there is a problem with procurement, in some small companies there is a lack of understanding of the procurement process? There needs to be a robust educational process, perhaps through councils, under which small, young micro-companies learn exactly what it is all about.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. However, to give an illustration from my own constituency experience, I often find that a small business not only finds it difficult with all the filling in of forms, but is blocked from getting into contracts. That is the issue that I want to get to the heart of, but I must first lay the foundations.

A core principle of the EU is to establish a single market that encourages trade and maximises value for the taxpayer in public procurement, obtaining the latter through increased competition by allowing companies from other EU nations to bid for contracts. As SMEs are crucial to the UK’s economic recovery, what have the Government done to encourage and assist them in accessing EU markets and public procurement in other EU member states?

EU procurement rules include transparency, fairness and non-discrimination. They apply to SMEs accessing public procurement in other EU member states, but do nothing to tackle those issues within the United Kingdom, as such rules do not apply. It remains an anomaly of the single market rules that, although under EU law one member state is not allowed to discriminate against an SME from another member state as part of public procurement of goods and services, subject to certain criteria, member states are entitled to act in a discriminatory fashion towards their own nationals.

It is admirable that the coalition Government have engaged with SMEs as one of their two main priorities concerning public procurement and that they intend to achieve that aim by making the procurement process

“much simpler, more open and less bureaucratic—so all businesses, no matter what their size, have a chance of success”.

However, the realisation of that priority, by opening doors for SMEs and providing them with the tools to apply, will make the real difference to our businesses and propel this country’s economic recovery forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr McCrea]

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend on that point and am delighted that he has a genuine interest in that environmental issue. I am sure that will be noted carefully.

The old proverb says, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life.” Although Stephen Allott, the Government’s appointed SME champion, argues that the

“big change is that procurement reform under Labour was a nice thing to have, whereas today saving money is central”,

the Government need to realise that people’s livelihoods are at stake. Owners of SMEs have often bravely given up a comfortable lifestyle and made significant investment to start up businesses from scratch. They are not mere pawns on a Government chessboard to be played when election time comes around. Much more needs to be done to upskill SMEs in the public procurement process. If a supplier has not bid before and is not very skilled at completing the tender, although it might be the best supplier, it will not win the contract. That was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) a few moments ago.

Interestingly, Mr Allott has stated that the difficulty in fast-tracking the SME agenda arises because of staff cutbacks in the public sector, and notably cuts to the number of individuals in procurement. Such streamlining has led to greater aggravation. It may on occasion save the taxpayer money, but it does nothing to support SMEs. Mr Allott has gone further, stating that the pressures now borne by remaining procurement staff have led many to

“stick with the suppliers they know rather than spend time researching potential partners or having speculative meetings with untried suppliers”—

so it is not what you know but who you know. That leaves SMEs isolated while large companies continue to court those with influence.

On indirect contracts, how will the Government ensure there is a “David and Goliath” approach to prevent prime contractors from driving down prices and creaming off the best work for themselves, leaving slender pickings for their smaller partners? What will the Government’s SMEs champion be doing to help SMEs to get the best possible deal when working with large companies?

[David Simpson]

On the “David and Goliath” issue, when many large companies receive Government contracts, SMEs turn out to be subcontractors and are pressurised harder on pricing, so their job becomes even more difficult.

[Dr McCrea]

I accept what my hon. Friend says.

I turn now to what the UK Government could learn from the devolved Administrations. According to FSB research, in 2013, authorities in Northern Ireland spent on average 80% of their total procurement spending with SMEs. Details of all current Northern Ireland public sector tender opportunities are available on one centralised web portal. In addition, a number of events have been organised to encourage economic co-operation and trade, enabling local businesses to meet a wide range of public sector buyers, including buyers from central Government Departments, councils, universities and other public bodies.

In 2009, the Assembly’s Committee for Finance and Personnel conducted an inquiry into public procurement and practices in Northern Ireland. As a result of that inquiry, the Committee made 52 recommendations to the Department of Finance and Personnel in a report published in February 2010, including all the recommendations put forward by the FSB. That shows that key stakeholders such as the FSB are listened to in Northern Ireland.

According to the Cabinet Office papers “Direct and Indirect Spend with SMEs” and “Making Government business more accessible to SMEs”, the total proportion of procurement spend with SMEs by central Government Departments has increased year on year. However, that analysis fails to include public bodies outside central Government. Hon. Members need to note that there are 22 non-ministerial departments, 346 agencies and other public bodies, 70 high-profile groups and 12 public corporations that, in total, have considerable spending power.

In October 2012, when Lord Heseltine published his independent review on increasing UK growth, “No Stone Unturned”, he recommended that the Government

“should place a general duty on all public bodies”—

not just those in central Government—

“setting out the procurement standards to which they should adhere, by providing a pan-government procurement strategy, legislating if necessary.”

When the Government published a consultation on a range of measures to simplify and standardise public sector procurement in “Making public sector procurement more accessible to SMEs” and “Small Business: GREAT Ambition”, in September and December 2013 respectively, they said that they would legislate and make changes across the wider public sector. However, it is regrettable that none of those changes included placing a duty on all public bodies, not just those in central Government, to set out

“the procurement standards to which they should adhere, by providing a pan-government procurement strategy”,

as Lord Heseltine recommended, because that has not happened.

I have tried to explain my general feeling about SMEs and Government contracts to set the scene for the debate, which I was urged to secure because of an experience in my constituency. That experience has not just troubled me; it has really got to me. A local person has put all their money into trying to be innovative and to create something good as a British enterprise, but that seems to have been stamped on and put into the ground.

That small, innovative British SME in my constituency has been failed by the Government and a public body for which it is accountable—the Highways Agency. That failure has affected not just the company, but the work force on the strategic road network, the taxpayer and the British motorist. This case study illustrates: the extent of the barriers erected to prevent market entry; the power of the small number of big companies that dominate the road maintenance market on the strategic road network; the disregard for safety and efficiency exhibited by the Highways Agency; and the seeming impotence of Departments to ensure that British SMEs are treated fairly and given appropriate opportunities, in this instance to introduce new products designed specifically to improve safety for the work force and the motorist, and to secure much better value for money for the public purse.

It is clear from the evidence that the safety of the work force is not given the priority that is required. On 8 January 2015, the Highways Agency was censured for the death of a traffic officer in September 2012 and, recently, another road traffic worker was killed on the strategic road network. It is also clear that the automation of traffic management processes could be made much more efficient through the use of an automated system of cone laying and retrieval.

Between 2002 and 2006, the SME that I am speaking about focused on ensuring its compliance with all UK industry standards, which involved complex interactions with several public bodies including the Highways Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department for Transport and the Transport Research Laboratory. By 2006, its manufactured system had been thoroughly tested and trialled across the UK, and it was fully compliant and market-ready. The Highways Agency funded all of the trialling, which signalled its interest in this innovative automated product.

In August 2006, the product was launched with a DFT press release and a statement from Dr Ladyman, the then Minister. He commented:

“In 2005, five road workers were killed in the course of their work on England’s motorways and major roads, making the motorway one of the most dangerous working environments in Britain…This new machine will help to give extra protection to workers and the public on our busiest roads, and help the Highways Agency to use lanes more efficiently during roadwork programmes…Road workers risk death and injury from traffic accidents every day, while making sure our roads are safe and well maintained”.

At that point, given such a press release, one would have expected that the product was well placed for adoption throughout the strategic road network.

The Highways Agency introduced the company to one of its major contractors in 2006. In the company’s view, their negotiations were not conducted in good faith. It transpired that the major contractor wished to purchase only one or two systems, because what it really wanted was the transfer of all intellectual property and manufacturing rights to itself, although what was proposed would have involved a loss for this small business.

As the months followed, it appeared that the role of the Highways Agency was to exert pressure on the company to accept the contractor’s offer at the contractor’s price, even if that involved a loss. The Highways Agency used its influence to support the major contractor, but not to support the SME, the theme behind Dr Ladyman’s statement about how road workers

“risk death and injury from traffic accidents every day, while making sure our roads are safe and well maintained”,

nor achieving a good price.

During 2008, to facilitate Highways Agency contractors to trial the new technology locally, a vehicle, system and skilled traffic management crew were made available for the entire Highways Agency network, ready to mobilise at short notice. Direct involvement with the Highways Agency failed to attract any business from the contractors.

Following my intervention in 2009, the Transport Research Laboratory, acting on behalf of the Highways Agency, presented the company with a proposed new contract. A signature on the contract would have transferred all intellectual property and manufacturing rights from my constituents to the Highways Agency, acting on behalf of the Crown. As part of the proposed contract, the agency would have been free to appoint a third-party supplier to benefit from the rights, to the loss of the original SME. The SME was expected to support the potential new supplier.

The company refused to sign the contract, but was prepared to negotiate. That led to an extended trial in 2009-10, which was carried out by the TRL and the agency. The trial was deeply flawed because untrained workers were used on the live road network, which meant that only seriously understated benefits could be derived from the use of the new product. Once again, for the benefit of the industry and to test this new technology locally, a vehicle and system was made available for the entire Highways Agency network between March and September 2010. There was professional support from about 20 depots across England, but Highways Agency contractors were not interested.

In 2011, on the company’s behalf, I, again, engaged with the Department and its then Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning). As a result, the Highways Agency conducted a cost-benefit analysis, which suggested that there would be huge additional costs and limited benefits, due to poor value for money and little safety benefit. Following a challenge of the work, the then Minister—I give him full credit—ordered an independent review, which was carried out by Jacobs, an international consultancy. It proved extremely difficult to secure proper data from the Highways Agency—I needed to table a series of questions, as a Member of Parliament—but eventually, in February 2012, the Jacobs report concluded definitively that the product could provide significant value for money, improved traffic flow and considerable safety benefits, which was the opposite of what civil servants said to the Minister. For example, when the then Minister asked how many stoppages there would be, the civil servants said that there would be 120,000 lane closures a year, but when I asked the question, as I did again and again, the answer that I received was 26,000. They were only out by about 4:1, so of course that really means little. The cost-benefit analysis was proved completely wrong.

The company wrote to the contractors and approached the SME champion at the Department for Transport. That engagement led to a report from the contractors that displayed a total lack of interest in a product that an independent and credible evaluation had declared could bring significant efficiency savings, value for money and safety benefits. The Highways Agency arranged a meeting between the company and the contractors, but appeared to be content that its contractors, using public resources, could turn their back on efficiencies, modernisation and safety. Then, of course, the Minister was moved from the Department, and the new Minister who took over did not seem to have the same interest.

The early contractual negotiations were not conducted in good faith. They were designed to ensure that a major contractor could benefit from the intellectual property rights and manufacturing potential of an SME-driven innovation. So much for getting SMEs into Government contracts.

It appears that after the refusal to sign the contract that was offered, the product was closed out of the market, even when it was ready to be used locally across the network. The independent report by Jacobs, which identified good value for money and safety benefits, was ignored by the contractors and also, largely, by the Highways Agency. The Department proved unwilling to challenge either the agency or the contractors with any degree of rigour, despite being the funder of the agency’s contracts. All the bodies involved did not address with sufficient vigour the safety benefits that the product would have brought. In addition, the Department and the agency refused access to the minutes of the Road Workers Safety Forum trials team because that might inhibit a free and frank exchange of views by contractors. The public interest did not appear to be paramount.

The experience of this company from 2006 to the present day has created the impression that a cartel of big contractors can ignore potential value for money, efficiency and safety considerations with impunity, and that that does not matter, as they will get their pay at the end of the day. They will be paid for what they put in, but the small company or micro-business can be trampled into the ground.

The system of accountability for the expenditure of public money appears to lack any effective scrutiny or teeth. There is a real issue about the safety dimension of this experience that does not appear to have been given serious attention by any of the major public or private players. The question at the heart of the matter is about the relationship between a public body and its private contractors. How far are decisions on road safety being determined by commercial concerns, and to what extent are the Government content to allow the self-regulation of safety standards for road workers and users?

This is an important issue and I will not let it go. I will continue to try to find out exactly how this happened. I do smell something wrong in this, as it seems that some persons within Departments are happy to play along with the big contractors.

Political Party Funding

Debate between David Simpson and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. When we look at the economic situation in this country, where families have to struggle to make ends meet, a political party, over the lifetime of a Parliament, is receiving some £500,000. It does not come to this House, does not take the Oath and does not carry out the day to day functions that every other party has to do.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such a valid point. We are constantly being reminded that we are in a deep hole economically, yet we find that representative money is without the same scrutiny and accountability that applies to Short money and to every other political party and elected representative. We all know that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has stringent rules for MPs’ expenses. There is a proper accountability, and rightly so. However, unlike every other party in this House, Sinn Fein can use that money for political ends and political purposes, rather than being subject to the accountability of using it for representing constituents.

On the scrutiny of MPs’ expenses, it was interesting to note that one Sinn Fein Member made a single flight to London from Northern Ireland, yet they claimed £18,000 that year for accommodation. I do not know what hotel they were staying in or what champagne they were drinking, but it must have been very expensive. They claimed for one flight and £18,000 for accommodation, yet this House and the scrutinisers did not lift an eyelid in surprise. Of course, we should not be surprised, bearing in mind the other things that Sinn Fein-IRA were up to at that time. It was a cynical ploy, which it has used right up to this present moment.

Pensioners are not able to get appropriate moneys and there are cutbacks in the welfare budget and every other budget, yet we are told we will still play the game for one political party in opposition to every other party. Every other party has to play by the rules of the game in politics, so it is not right that one political party is able to absent itself from that situation. It is a disgrace. It is discriminatory and therefore totally unacceptable. Why should pensioners, young people and the unemployed or people who are endeavouring to get into work find themselves in difficult situations financially when we have a political party walking away and enjoying the fruits of not representing its constituents in this mother of Parliaments?

Sinn Fein also sits in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It says it does that because of its political allegiance to a united Ireland, so it is showing its distaste and objection to the United Kingdom and being a part of a British institution. Let us examine that. Sinn Fein sits in the Northern Ireland Assembly, an institution created by statute of this House of Commons. It is a British institution. The laws passed there, just like the laws passed here, go to Her Majesty the Queen to receive Royal Assent. Sinn Fein Ministers participate in that process on a day-and-daily basis. As a benefit of its participation in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Sinn Fein receives money for party administration and support staff, just like every other party. It takes that money as a benefit of its participation in the Assembly at Stormont—participation that it does not undertake here, yet it is paid the money without representation.

The argument that the special arrangement at Westminster is equivalent to that at Stormont is simply not true. In opposition, the Conservatives drew the same distinction as we do. The then shadow Secretary of State, Quentin Davies, said:

“There is in fact no comparison at all between the position in Stormont and that in the House because Sinn Fein-IRA have agreed to take their seats in the Assembly at Stormont and in the Executive there”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 162.]

Given subsequent developments, and Mr Davies’s departure to the Labour party, I appreciate that some Conservative Members might not want to hear a quote from him, but I believe that he was entirely correct in his annunciation of the party position, and I trust that he and his colleagues still hold to that.

In the run-up to the 2010 general election, the Conservative party made several clear-cut commitments on the continued payment of allowances to Sinn Fein MPs. The previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), was equally vocal on the issue. In the Daily Mail of 8 April 2009, he said:

“It is completely unacceptable for Sinn Fein representatives, who won’t even sit in Parliament, to claim hundreds of thousands at the taxpayers’ expense.”

Although he is no longer Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and he might consider that he has been given a higher position in government, he is a member of the Cabinet. Who can argue with his statement? On one of his many visits to Northern Ireland during the European election campaign, he made clear what direction the Conservative party would take on the issue—I ought to know because my constituency was one to which he seemed to pay special attention. He said that

“it is inconceivable that incoming Conservative MPs would vote to continue paying millions of pounds of public money to elected Members who do not take their seats.”

That is a clear statement. There is no ambiguity and no way round it, and there is no justification for his shifting from the position he announced before the election.

[David Simpson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, has clearly stated that there will never be any circumstance under which Sinn Fein MPs will take their seats in the mother of all Parliaments?

[Dr McCrea]

With the greatest respect, Gerry Adams has said a lot of things. He has said that he was never a member of the IRA, yet he was seen as one of its leading members in the city of Belfast, so we have to be careful with what he has to say.

That highlights something else that is galling to the Unionist community and, indeed, to every law-abiding citizen. There seem to be elected representatives in Northern Ireland, and now even in the Irish Republic, who are treated differently from other Members of Parliament. I suggest that everyone is equally subject to, as well as equal under, the law. That ought to apply to Gerry Adams and to Martin McGuinness; it certainly applies to my hon. Friends and colleagues and to every other Member of this House. As far as Adams, who now sits in another Parliament, is concerned, I would take certain statements from him with a pinch of salt.

Given such a catalogue of publicly stated positions, there can be no doubt as to the stance of the Conservative party, which is the major partner in the coalition Government, on this issue. The chickens have come home to roost. It was easy for the Conservatives to point the finger at the Labour Administration. It was easy for them to go through the voting Lobby whenever a proposal came from the Labour Government, but now the responsibility rests with this Administration and they will not be able to get out of facing up to it. That is what government is all about, and we are told day-and-daily that government is about taking hard decisions. I suggest that this Government have taken many harder decisions than this, on cutting benefits and so on, and they believe that they do so in the interests of the economic well-being of the country. I do not doubt their sincerity or the premise on which they present their case, but if they make such decisions on those grounds, there are no grounds whatever for them to move away from the principle of every Member and every party in this House being equal and being treated with equality.

There were clear and unambiguous statements that an incoming Tory Administration would mean the end of the wasteful and anti-democratic use of public resources. I can imagine the Government spokesman, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), preparing the argument that this is not a Conservative Administration, and that is true. But it is a Conservative-led Administration, and the Prime Minister is a Conservative Prime Minister. He might say that there is a coalition and, as a consequence, some things that were said on the assumption of an overall Tory majority have to be reviewed. The logic of that argument is correct, and it means that we need to consider the matter of the Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrats, for whatever reason, did not adopt a formal position on the issue back in 2001, choosing instead to afford their Members a free vote, and I have not heard or seen anything from the Liberal Democrat leadership to indicate a change in that position. Liberal Democrat Members can vote freely on the matter, and I have no doubt that a great many of them, perhaps even a majority, would be persuaded by the arguments made so eloquently by their coalition partners. I certainly hope that that will be so. The coalition has taken hard financial decisions to try to rescue our country from the economic pit that it finds itself in, so it has to face the hard decision concerning this money.

The logic for introducing the changes back in 2001 was flawed. Not only was it based on handing out concessions to a political party that at the time refused to come up to the same minimum democratic standards as the rest of us, but it served to create two classes of MP and to render as nothing the rules of this House. In practice, it has demonstrably failed. If the plan was to kill off abstentionist politics through financial inducement, it has not worked. The Sinn Fein position is as immovable as it was 20 years ago. Despite the fact that Martin McGuinness can meet the Queen or that Sinn Fein Ministers participate in the institutions at Stormont, Sinn Fein has indicated repeatedly that it would not, even if the Oath or affirmation were removed, attend the House of Commons. Its Members receive allowances from the Northern Ireland Assembly as a benefit of their participation there, and the same logic should apply here. No show should mean no pay. I urge the Government to act in that regard without further delay, and make good their many and repeated public promises on this issue.

Security in Northern Ireland

Debate between David Simpson and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Simpson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely correct. Such events send out the wrong message and seem to give support to dissident republicans which, as was mentioned earlier, encourages young people to believe that the war is not really over. In the words of one famous republican, “We haven’t gone away you know.” We must remember that.

[Dr McCrea]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that a dangerous precedent has been set by members of Sinn Fein and the SDLP on Dungannon and South Tyrone council? A person has gone through the due process of the law as a result of an action to murder a member of the DUP—Councillor Sammy Brush—yet now we find that their release is being demanded.

[David Simpson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In fact, he must have seen my speech—[Interruption.] He probably thought he wrote it for me. He is right to say that the call from the SDLP is despicable, and I will soon refer to that case in my speech.

A generation of young people are emerging in Northern Ireland for whom the worst days of the troubles are something they hear their parents talk about at the fireside. Mercifully, these young people have no real first-hand experience of such things themselves. I welcome that changed dispensation and the fact that our society has become less accustomed to violence and less accepting of it than during the dark days. At stake, however, is the maintenance of peace and prosperity for all our people.

I pay tribute to Kate Carroll, the wife of Constable Stephen Carroll who was murdered in my constituency. She is a very brave lady and I understand that in January next year she will launch in the Stormont buildings an initiative for disfranchised young people. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry referred to young people who are unemployed and find themselves in difficult circumstances, and Kate Carroll is bringing forward an initiative that will help such people to find work, get involved in youth projects, and remove them from the scene and criminal activity, and from the leeches that try to tap into their lives and take them away. I pay tribute to Kate Carroll; she is a brave lady who has been outspoken on many issues and come a long way since the death of her husband. She should be congratulated on that.

There was a time in Northern Ireland when a person’s losing their life as a consequence of terrorism was sometimes read out on news broadcasts with the tiresome repetition of the weather forecast or the market report. Those terrible times are gone, except for a tiny, crazed element that seeks to take us backwards. That element does exist, and we learn from the past that if it is not confronted, it will persist. It is a sign of how far forward we have moved as a society that the community, right across the traditional divides, was genuinely convulsed in shock by the recent murder of David Black. People who lived through the dark days do not want to go back to them, and their children do not want to endure what their parents had to endure. We must not let our people down through a weak response to that grave threat. We must have peace, but it can only be guaranteed through strength.

Peace will be preserved in our country only if those who threaten its continuation are confronted and harried at every opportunity by the legitimate forces of law and order. My point again to the Secretary of State is that we need to provide any resources that are needed. We need to take those people on, defeat them and remove them from our society. We need to remove their political ideology—or whatever ideology—to try to bring them to their knees. Republicans tried for many years in Northern Ireland, but they found that the people of Ulster are very resilient, despite all that was thrown at them over the years. The people of Northern Ireland did not give in to the Provisional IRA, and I can assure the House that they will not give in to any so-called dissident republicans. They will continue to fight and continue to remain members of this United Kingdom no matter what is thrown at them.

The latest incarnation of republican terrorism considers itself to be the keeper of an old republican flame—the armed struggle. Those people believe that, if they can keep alive the twisted tradition of anti-democratic violence, it will eventually burn as strongly as it did in the past. The psychopathic delusion required to sustain such a nightmare vision ignores the pain and suffering that would be inflicted on the wider community were it ever to become a reality. It can never be allowed to become a reality. Too many people have suffered as a consequence of politically motivated violence. It is essential that the Government do all in their power to defeat those who would seek to reignite the flames of division and bloodshed. Every tool at our disposal should be deployed.

The news that the disparate and scattered remnants of physical-force republicanism have joined together under a single banner—one local tabloid referred to it yesterday as a coalition, but I will not go into that—shows why the current policy of allowing dissidents to segregate in prisons must be ended. It is beyond dispute that the warnings given in 2003 on where that policy would ultimately lead have been fulfilled. The policy should be reversed, and I hope the Secretary of State joins us in calling for that.

It is more important now than ever that all democratic parties in Northern Ireland stand together to oppose the dissident agenda. That is why I have found some of the actions of the SDLP very disappointing. I have a lot of respect for many SDLP members, but recent comments have been disappointing. It sends out a mixed and confused message if the leader of the SDLP and his party colleagues campaign for the release of Marian Price and Gerry McGeough. McGeough was convicted by a court of law for the attempted murder of my party colleague, Councillor Sammy Brush. Had Sammy Brush not been in possession of a personal weapon, he would have been dead today. He was able to return fire, but he would have been dead had the personal protection weapon not been issued to him.

It was appalling to hear the leader of the SDLP claim that McGeough has been victimised. It was equally appalling when his party backed a call for McGeough to be released. Let us imagine the scene at Dungannon and South Tyrone borough council on that night: Councillor Brush was sitting in his place in the council chamber while one nationalist speaker after another rose to demand the release of the man who had tried to murder him. Such behaviour is an affront to any innocent victim of terrorism. McGeough should not be released until he has served his full sentence. That is the end of the story.

Marian Price had her licence revoked by the previous Secretary of State for encouraging support for the very same terrorists who would seek to plunge Northern Ireland back into the violence and bloodshed of the past. At this juncture, there can be no question of setting her free. I hope the Secretary of State reiterates the Government’s support for the decision taken by her predecessor in that regard.

I hope the Secretary of State provides an assurance that any PSNI request for additional resources to tackle the threat posed by dissident republicans will be looked on favourably by the Government. When we are talking about protecting the safety and security of British citizens, there can be no question of penny pinching. Prison officers, who are currently the focus of attention, need protection. Whatever package is required—whether PPWs or home protection—needs to be provided.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that Ulster has lost too many young men and women, and men and women who have served their country for many years. We do not want to see any more.

Child Slavery

Debate between David Simpson and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[David Simpson]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. He is 100% right. Britain should play a stronger role on this issue, and perhaps later in my speech I will address that point. It is important that Britain take the lead on this issue, because slavery is such an horrific crime.

The US Department of State has estimated that up to 800,000 people are trafficked across borders worldwide. Most of them are women and children who are trafficked for sexual purposes. That figure does not include people trafficked within individual countries.

Concerns about the trafficking of children and young people for sexual purposes in the United Kingdom have been raised for some time. I commend the work of ECPAT, which is a very good organisation. Its full name is “End Child Prostitution Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes”. In its October 2010 report, “Child trafficking in the UK: a snapshot”, it made 10 recommendations. They range from establishing a Government rapporteur on trafficking to the issue of departmental responsibility for safeguarding the child victims of trafficking. They also include very practical recommendations such as the appointment of

“a designated lead manager on child trafficking…in every local authority”,

the provision of

“safe accommodation for all child victims of trafficking”,

and the creation of

“a system of guardianship for child victims of trafficking. Such a system would mean that every child victim of trafficking would have someone with parental responsibility”.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware of those recommendations and I ask him to give us an update on what the Government are doing with regard to them.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. He has already given statistics about the exploitation of children, including statistics about forced marriage and sexual exploitation. I am sure that he will agree that, although the statistics themselves are horrifying, it must be remembered that behind each of them there is a horrifying experience. It has been reported that children as young as five are being bought and sold on the streets within the United Kingdom for £16,000.

[David Simpson]

That is correct.

[Dr McCrea]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see the current situation change radically and that that can happen only if the authorities pursue criminal convictions?

[David Simpson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree 100% with him. We need to have convictions. There must be a willingness from the Government’s point of view to do something about this issue. If there is a will within the Government to do something about it, we will see results and then convictions will come afterwards. That is why it is important that we listen when the Minister responds to the debate. Hopefully, some glimmer of light and hope will emerge.

Investigations by children’s charities have identified sexual trafficking not only through the United Kingdom to other destinations but to the United Kingdom itself, with children and young people ending up as sex workers in brothels in various parts of the country. That seems to be a very strong statement when we are talking about the United Kingdom—this United Kingdom, the modern United Kingdom, which emphasises its work skills, its technology and everything that goes with that. We are out there to market ourselves to the wider world and we have a situation today where children as young as five or six are being sold on the streets of England for £16,000. That is the evidence from the research papers that I have been given—I did not make it up. It is abhorrent that that should happen in any country.

UNICEF is a reputable organisation. It has said that about 250 children were known to be trafficked into the United Kingdom within a five-year period, but it added that the real figure is likely to be far higher. These children are brought into the United Kingdom as slaves for the sex industry. In 2009, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre published a report, “Strategic Threat Assessment Child Trafficking in the UK 2010”. That report identified 325 children in the United Kingdom as known or suspected victims of child trafficking in the year from March 2007 to February 2008. Trafficked children in the United Kingdom have been identified as coming from a widening range of sources.

In 2009, the then Government set up a national referral mechanism for the identification of children coming into the United Kingdom through the trafficking process. Between 1 April 2009 and 30 June 2009, 40 children were referred through that system, including two children under the age of 10. That is horrific.

Some children who have been trafficked may have been physically abducted, but many children are trafficked with the knowledge of family members, who believe that their children are being offered the chance of a better life within the United Kingdom or elsewhere and do not know that they may be destined for sexual exploitation. The vast majority of those trafficked for sexual purposes are girls, but trafficking of boys is not unusual.

UNICEF has also estimated that that figure of 40 children —those who were identified through the national referral mechanism—is likely to be higher. UNICEF has recently estimated that at any one time there are about 5,000 child sex workers—not five, 50 or 500—in this so-called modern United Kingdom. Some 75% of them are females, and the remainder are young boys.

The internal situation in other parts of the globe is worse, and even more distressing. It has been estimated that 30% of sex workers in India are children— between 270,000 and 400,000 child prostitutes. In Brazil, up to 500,000 boys and girls are commercially sexually exploited, and on the borders between Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, 3,500 children are confined in brothels and clubs as slaves. We are talking about children who have not reached sexual maturity, and have no idea or understanding of what is happening to them. That is absolutely disgusting. Police in South Africa estimate that 28,000 children are coerced into the industry every year, and that in Cape Town alone some 25% of workers in the sex industry are very young children. In south and east Asia, one third of sex workers are children. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that those figures are shameful and beggar belief. Yet they are more than statistics: every figure represents the misery and loss that is routinely inflicted on a young life daily. Young lives are destroyed, and the very notion of civilisation or society debased.

[Dr McCrea]

On the sexual exploitation of children, does my hon. Friend agree that many of these children have been abducted from their families? No one can understand the anguish and pain that that causes a family. I say that as a parent who, many years ago, nearly lost one of his children, who was three or four at the time, in a hotel on vacation. My child was being taken away from us by a lady, and could have ended up in the industry. No one can understand the horror and pain that that can cause a family.

[David Simpson]

I absolutely agree, and I have mentioned the abhorrence, pain and anguish. I am sure that all hon. Members will have seen the recent news about a woman from New York who was abducted when she was very young and found out about it when she was an adult. There was a reunion, but it was miraculous that that happened, because so many times it does not, and people are left wondering how their children have turned out. It would be very difficult to live with the fact that a family member had been taken and used in such a way.

When it comes to the economic exploitation of children, including child labour, very often the United Kingdom is further downstream from the event, but the situation is no less real and no less dreadful for those caught up in the middle. Commodities—finished products that we buy—can have been produced, in part, by the efforts of forced child labour or slavery. In more than 50 African, Asian and South American countries, 1 million children are put into mines and quarries. That is a fact. About 40,000 children work in mining in the Congo. In west Africa it has been estimated that 200,000 children work in small-scale gold and mineral mines and quarries, and almost 18,000 children work in gold, silver and copper mines in the Philippines. Mining shifts worked by children can last up to 24 hours. Children work unprotected in mineral extraction, crushing ore using toxins such as mercury, at the risk of contamination. Children break and sort out rocks, water supplies are often contaminated, and there is the risk of underground explosions.

On top of those figures, we can add the number of children exploited as a result of bonded labour, in which a child is forced into slavery to pay off their family’s debt. It has been estimated that in India alone some 15 million children, most of them from low-caste families that have got into difficulties, could be working to pay off someone else’s debt. Many children across the globe, including in the United Kingdom, are beaten frequently, and passed from one owner to another as little more than a possession, or a dog. Save the Children has estimated that in Nepal there are approximately 200,000 bonded labourers, many of them children. In one province of Pakistan alone, it is estimated that there are almost 7 million bonded labourers, including children, and that around 250,000 children work in Pakistani brick kilns, and live there. Almost 70% of all child labour is in agriculture, with more than 130 million children involved in agricultural work each day.

Last year, the United States Department of Labour drew up a list of products produced by child or forced labour—slavery. The list goes from cocoa and cotton to rubber and coal; from gold and diamonds to emeralds and silver; from carpets and clothing to leather and silk; from garlic and grapes to bananas and rice; from salt and sugar to tobacco and tea; and from footballs and fireworks to fashion and furniture. All those products are made around the globe through the exploitation of children and the use of child slavery.

When it comes to both the sexual exploitation of children internationally and the kind of child labour that I have just mentioned, there are real issues for the United Kingdom Government. I am sure that all hon. Members will be able to identify numerous areas in which these issues cut across a number of Departments, but I draw specific attention to the Department for International Development. I emphasise that we are grateful for the assistance given by the UK Government to other countries, and that we are even more grateful to the many millions of people across the United Kingdom who donate money to special causes and needs, but surely pressure needs to be applied and greater emphasis placed on using our influence to end these practices. I think that all hon. Members will agree that the facts of life for millions of children across the globe, right now as we participate in this debate, are shocking and shameful.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I am certain that whatever minor differences hon. Members might have about individual incidents and the particular responses required, we all share a conviction that child slavery is wrong, unjust and unacceptable in this modern world. I have no doubt that that is the case. That fact draws out before each of us a question that might at first glance seem unusual, even unnecessary. Whatever our political background and personal experiences, why do we share an opposition to child slavery and a conviction that this evil should end? It makes no sense in evolutionary terms. Are we not told that evolution is about survival of the fittest and competition within species? So what if the poor, the weak and the helpless are exploited by the strong and the ruthless? But buried in the depths of every man and woman is a conviction that there is something better.

Every springtime—we are coming into spring now—nature stretches out and reaches up to bring forth new life and vigour, leaving behind the deadness of winter. Every year it is doomed to fall back in winter, but every spring it stirs and rises once more. Likewise, every human being stretches out and reaches up for something better and higher. It is inborn and embedded within us to be like that. What do we stretch out towards and reach up to lay hold of? In my opinion, it is the God who reaches down to us and who himself came down to us. It is the original created image in us—yes, it is tainted, marred and clouded, but it is still that part of man, made originally for God and in the likeness of God—that stretches out and reaches up for something better and higher. That is what tells every man that the wicked enslavement of children is wrong. Just as one came down to earth to open the soul’s prison, break its fetters, snap its chains and set it free, so we feel the urge and impulse to set at liberty children who are enslaved.

I do not intend to offend any right hon. or hon. Member by saying that I do not believe that there are many Wilberforces around today. However, I believe that in the breast of every hon. Member from every political party already beats something to which Wilberforce gave voice. Wilberforce said on one occasion:

“If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large.”

It is my wish by this debate to make such fanatics of us all.

Human Trafficking

Debate between David Simpson and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on initiating this important debate on human trafficking, which is a particularly brutal form of organised crime.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) reminds us that next Monday is anti-slavery day. Mankind has been guilty of many atrocities and crimes down the centuries, but I believe that one of the biggest travesties is slavery. Nothing is more degrading or humiliating for individuals than to have to live such lives. Human trafficking is a modern form of slavery, victims often being forced to work in the illegal sex industry.

As has been mentioned, this obscene trade was recently debated by the Northern Ireland Assembly. One thing that featured in that debate was the fact that, in many areas, people have suspicions about particular dwellings or establishments that they suspect are being used as illegal brothels. They report their suspicions to the authorities, but little action seems to be taken. That is a major concern. All parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly endorsed the proposal that Northern Ireland should be an unwelcome place for traffickers, but we need more than that. Although such matters are passed by our legislative chambers, we need to see action—and a large number of convictions.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Over the years countless initiatives have been taken by various Governments, but initiatives of themselves are not sufficient. Surely the courts should allow the sentence to fit the crime. We must have sentencing that will stop this terrible and despicable abuse.