EU Relations
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Frost (Con)
It is probably not helpful for me to get into speculating about what polls may or may not show about outcomes months or years from now. To be honest, I am not sure there is a very direct connection between our Brexit policy and the rise of Sinn Féin in Ireland, which I think is due to quite a wide range of other factors and has parallels with what is happening across Europe. However, I defer to the noble Lord’s judgment; he has been to the Sinn Féin conference and I have not.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, the protocol continues to damage the economy and political stability in Northern Ireland, but some Members in this House seem oblivious to that fact. Does the Minister accept that the Government must fully restore Northern Ireland’s position as a full part of the internal market of the United Kingdom? Does he also accept that the people of Northern Ireland cannot continue to be subject to laws in Northern Ireland on which they have no say or input? The status quo is not an option.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, those are very good points. They are based on the fact that, ultimately, the protocol says that Northern Ireland’s position in the UK’s internal market must be respected and that it is part of the UK’s customs territory. That must be read alongside other provisions in the protocol, but we are not convinced that those requirements are being respected in the way that is necessary if we are to ensure that they are more than a dead letter. That is why we have proposed measures that would rebalance the protocol, support the balance of the Good Friday agreement and take us to a better place.
EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom has left the European Union, but there are aspects of the trade co-operation agreement that will not apply equally to all parts of the kingdom. Northern Ireland is forced to operate in line with the UK-EU protocol imposed upon it. Throughout the exit discussions with the Government, the principle that guided my colleagues was always that Northern Ireland’s place within the internal market must not be undermined, and that Northern Ireland must continue to enjoy unfettered access both to and from Great Britain. However, under the protocol there are barriers to internal trade within the United Kingdom, and businesses are already experiencing economic disadvantage.
We were told, of course, that the protocol was built upon the foundation of the Belfast agreement. Will the Minister tell us why our Government do not activate Article 16 of the protocol, which provides a mechanism for the protocol to be unilaterally disapplied by either the Government or the EU if its imposition leads to serious economic, societal and environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade? While we fulfil all the demands of the protocol, to the detriment of our businesses, because of the severe difficulties facing Irish businesses, the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin have moved unilaterally to simplify the procedures without fanfare. The present procedures are cumbersome, causing produce to vanish off supermarket shelves.
It would be helpful if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland changed his rhetoric, as he continually lives in denial when he asserts that there is no Irish Sea border. Perhaps he could tell that to the freight companies who use the seaports daily. He needs to explain also why his Government provided millions of pounds, demanding the erection of infrastructure at all our seaports. With the power to disapply unilaterally these impediments, will the Government act now? They need to be bold and underpin our full place in the most important internal market for us, that of the UK, with unfettered access, as we were promised.
Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, although I recognise that these regulations will not apply in Northern Ireland, the fact that devolved policy on public pensions and compensation is broadly benchmarked against terms in GB means that they remain of clear relevance to employers and employees in the Province.
I agree with the Government that it is important that public sector exit payments are proportionate and fair to the taxpayer. There has been an increasing number of six-figure sums paid out that exceed three times the average annual salary. However, at the same time, I would not favour a blanket cap that fails to allow circumstances to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The safeguards built into this legislation to waive the cap in cases of illness, death and statutory redundancy pay, for instance, are therefore positive.
The role of exit payments is vital to an employer’s ability to make reforms and broaden the skills and talent base for the future. The use of exit payments as part of early retirement arrangements often incentivises young people to enter a specialism where there will be gaps in the skill base in the future. I think, for example, of the previous scheme for mental health nurses in Northern Ireland, which allows those who entered the scheme several decades ago to retire at 55 without detriment. This positive role that exit payments can play should be retained, albeit with a recognition that we need to balance it against the interests of the public purse.
It is important that those whose early retirement could be disrupted by these arrangements are not disadvantaged by being unable to re-enter the workforce to apply their skills to temporary roles in our hospitals and schools that desperately need to be filled —although without, of course, taking jobs from young people who desire full-time employment. We need to see a close and regular review of the impacts of the regulations. Back in Northern Ireland, it will be important for local Ministers to review the changes in England to ensure that public sector roles and payments in Northern Ireland are both competitive and fair.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown ExcerptsMonday 27th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 July 2020 - (14 Jul 2020)
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, the Bill makes provision for the number of constituencies to remain at 650. I welcome that, as the previous recommendation for 600 seats was strongly opposed by my party colleagues. However, there should be an express provision in the legislation for a minimum of 18 seats in Northern Ireland. Concern has rightly been expressed that Northern Ireland could fluctuate up or down a seat, with a knock-on effect on the Northern Ireland Assembly, therefore causing significant unnecessary disruption to representation. Having such a safeguard is low risk but would provide certainty and stability in Northern Ireland.
Rule 7 is an important flexibility for Northern Ireland, and I welcome its retention in the Bill. Rule 7 of Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 provides for different arrangements for Northern Ireland if the commission considers that having to adhere to the maximum 5% deviation from electoral quotas in each constituency does not allow it to take account of special factors, such as geographical considerations or local ties. This discretion is vital to address our Province’s unique circumstances. Indeed, in the other place, my colleagues also supported a number of amendments to the Bill at Report, including new Clause 1, which would helpfully widen the permissible range in the constituency’s total electorate up to 7.5%, rather than 5%.
The loss of parliamentary approval—or, indeed, any parliamentary procedure—for the final proposals is, in my opinion, not acceptable. A democratic accountability mechanism is critical, and it is not appropriate for the Boundary Commissions to be given such sweeping power. The frequency of reviews in previous legislation was a concern, and I am therefore happy to see a longer, more sustainable timeframe for future reviews of eight years. The local government boundary review is something Northern Ireland will be embarking on, so this flexibility may be as relevant to us as on the mainland.
I therefore wish to give my support to the main thrust of the Bill.
Finance Bill
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown ExcerptsFriday 17th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2020 View all Finance Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 2 July 2020 - (2 Jul 2020)
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation of the Finance Bill. There is no doubt that this year will be remembered as one that fundamentally challenged our economic prosperity. Indeed, Covid-19 has challenged every system of government across the world and threatened not only people’s lives but their livelihoods. Extraordinary measures had to be taken and much of the political dogma and individual party manifesto commitments have been set aside to meet the challenges presented by this crisis.
The Chancellor has made some swift and imaginative decisions that have provided businesses with immediate help to protect their long-term viability. I believe that, from the beginning, our banks could have been more proactive, sympathetic and co-operative with small and medium-sized businesses. An inquiry should be held into how quickly loans were approved and funds reached businesses in the light of the Government providing security for the loans. Sadly, for some, approval was too late.
We all acknowledge that taxes are necessary to support our public services, but we must ensure that they are fair and that those who are able to work are encouraged to do so by making work really pay. I am sure the Minister will agree that huge numbers of businesses are struggling. As we seek to emerge from these past months of lockdown, we must do everything to protect jobs while encouraging wealth creators. It is true that there are no easy answers, because we are in uncharted waters and face still unseen possibilities and probabilities. However, with fortitude, we can steer a pathway through.
In so doing, we must have an aggressive policy to deal with tax avoidance and evasion. The new 2% tax on the revenues of search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces that derive value from UK users is to be welcomed. It is unfair that huge multinational online firms pay less in tax than small high street businesses. Like many other regions of the United Kingdom, our high streets in Northern Ireland have witnessed countless shop closures because of the burden of various taxes. We must re-energise the spirit of local enterprise and bring life back into our towns and villages. However, I also recognise that digital-based businesses will play an even greater part in our economy. Therefore, we must work with our international partners to agree an appropriate taxation system for the future.
In accepting the reality that the United Kingdom has left the European Union, I ask the Minister to ensure, in future trade negotiations, that the Government will protect Northern Ireland businesses from being disadvantaged in any manner and that our industries will not be burdened with additional bureaucracy not experienced by other regions of the United Kingdom.
I ask the Minister to consider the survival of the aviation sector. Does he not think that the time has come for the Government to look again at air passenger duty and remove this impediment, bearing in mind the unfair advantage it gives to airports in the Irish Republic, our competitors?
While I recognise the uncertainty over job retention, I trust that the Government will take measures to ensure that our young people will be able to get a mortgage and get on the property ladder. We need to get our country back to work and resurrect our manufacturing industry.
Brexit: Financial Assistance for Businesses
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I thank the noble Lord for his kind and warm words but pessimistic outlook for my tenure in this post; I now have a challenge to be standing here in 13 months’ time. We are in a negotiation. I cannot speak for what will or will not happen over the next few months. We have given certainty to businesses. We have said that we will be trading with the rest of the world in the same way as with the EU from 1 January next year. The level of tariffs and frictionality will be revealed over the course of the negotiations.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State concerning no border down the Irish Sea and the assurance of the Prime Minister. Will the Minister assure the House that unfettered and tariff-free access will be maintained for produce between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Brexit: Stability of the Union
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, originally I did not intend to speak but quite a number of misleading statements concerning my party have been made during this debate and they should not go unanswered.
I have no doubt that Brexit has presented a great challenge to the people of the United Kingdom and a great challenge to the Government. However, it was decided by the people of the United Kingdom that the UK should leave the EU, and that must be honoured. One could of course ask how we got there. We did not get there by chance. Looking back over history, I was reminded that a certain Nick Clegg walked out of the Commons on 26 February 2008 when the then Speaker, Michael Martin, refused to call a Liberal Democrat amendment demanding a referendum on the EU. Another Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament was then expelled from the Chamber. In their 2010 election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for a national vote on UK membership of the EU. The only problem was that, when they got it, they did not like the result, but of course that is not how democracy works. When you call a referendum and ask the people their view, you should respect the will of the people.
During the previous debate on Brexit, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said that I had suggested that we should discount the 88% of the nationalists who voted against Brexit. I did not say that they should be discounted; I said that 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain and 44% for Brexit, but 66% of unionists voted for Brexit. I remind this House that seven Members in another place were elected and the only barrier to them coming to the United Kingdom Parliament is the barrier that they themselves have erected. They can certainly speak for the 88% of nationalists but I am proud to speak as a unionist. I believe that the Brexit vote was taken not as a regional vote but as a vote for the whole of the United Kingdom.
There was also mention of the threat of violence. That is a very serious matter to raise. Coming from a part of the country and from a family that have endured the reality of violence and the murder of my loved ones, I suggest that we should not even be talking about the threat of violence if the Government continue with Brexit.
This is a serious matter and we are faced with a problem. The Prime Minister has offered to have talks across all the parties but the leader of the Labour Party has slammed that offer as a stunt. I believe that all parties are obliged by the people to seek a way forward to gain a resolution to this vital issue. She has offered talks and it would be remiss if we did not take them up in a constructive way, seeking a way forward for the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. We are extraordinarily obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to thank him for the notable comprehensiveness of his response, which is a polite way of exhorting him to resume his seat.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Minister tell the House what he believes has been the effectiveness of individual and continuous registration in Northern Ireland? Does he accept the importance and value of continuing the annual household canvass to achieve robust electoral registration?
Mr Gyimah
We have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland. One of the things we have preserved in the transition to IER is indeed the annual canvass. That is also why we have carried over people from the last annual canvass to ensure that no one who was registered to vote as at January 2014 will lose their right to vote come 7 May.
General Election Television Debates
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am also grateful for the support that has been evident from Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, I have with me letters from the leaders of other parties throughout the United Kingdom defending and supporting our inclusion in the national debates.
Let me make the position of the Democratic Unionist party very clear. We want the national debates to happen and we do not want to intrude or ask to be involved in a national debate involving the national parties. For instance, we are quite happy that there should be a head-to-head debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or a debate among those parties that are deemed to be national and have sufficient standing to stand in all parts of the United Kingdom. We did not raise any objections to that or ask to be included in that debate. When the broadcasters decided that they would invite the Scottish National party from Scotland and Plaid Cymru from Wales to be involved in the national debate, however, that prompted the question of why they would include a party that stands only in Scotland and a party that stands only in Wales but not the Democratic Unionist party, which has more MPs and more votes than Plaid Cymru and more MPs than the Greens, Plaid and the SNP put together. The whole thing is ludicrous.
We met the BBC at our request after it had proposed its second formulation. As I understand it, the BBC never asked to speak to any of the parties in Northern Ireland. Not only did the BBC not speak to the political parties in Northern Ireland but, as I understand it, the BBC mandarins and fonctionnaires did not even speak to their own journalists in Northern Ireland. I am not sure what happened in other countries or regions of the UK, but they took the decision without consulting the people directly involved in Northern Ireland. I hear them talk about consulting all the parties, but it is clear that they have not fulfilled their obligation, because they have not consulted us, despite our size and contribution and the potential for a hung Parliament on 8 May. These are serious questions, particularly for the BBC, that need to be answered. I reiterate our position: we are concerned with the national debates only because parties from other countries are to be involved but Northern Ireland is to be excluded, and there will be parties in those national debates putting forward candidates in Northern Ireland, and therefore it is prejudicial to Northern Ireland parties, particularly the DUP.
It is sometimes said by the BBC and other broadcasters, “Well, there will be local debates in Northern Ireland among the main parties. That is the opportunity for Northern Ireland politicians and parties to debate in front of the Northern Ireland electorate and set out their policies.” That is all fine and well—we have no objection to debating in that format—but I understand that such debates will also take place in Scotland and Wales. Yes, let us have those debates, but when it comes to the national debates, we cannot have one rule for parties chosen arbitrarily at the whim of unaccountable broadcasters deciding what is best for everyone else and having a different rule for Northern Ireland. That is totally unacceptable.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Lord Grade is reported as having accused channel bosses of breaking their legal duty of impartiality in threatening to stage the debates without the Prime Minister, but does that duty not also extend to the DUP, which is well represented in this House, given the inclusion of Plaid Cymru and the SNP?
Mr Dodds
My hon. Friend raises the important point, which the noble Lord referred to in his article, about the duty of impartiality that is placed on the BBC and to which I think other broadcasters should show due high regard. It remains to be seen what happens. Significantly, in this debate about debates, people have been forthright in saying, “This will happen”, but the reality keeps turning out to be very different. In the first formulation, the broadcasters assured us that there would be three debates with invitations to four parties—the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Lib Dems and UKIP—and that if anyone did not turn up, they would be “empty chaired”, but then of course they changed their minds.
Mr Dodds
That is absolutely right, and I think the BBC will live to regret that arrogance. The way it is treating the political parties of Northern Ireland displays a great level of contempt for the people of Northern Ireland.
I shall start my conclusion as I know other Members want to speak. Where are we at the moment? We are, preposterously, supposed to believe the threat from the broadcasters that they can legally contrive debates during the short general election campaign at which the Prime Minister is not present while many of his political opponents are. Reference has been made to what Lord Grade has said today. Some people may believe that that is possible. Some people in the BBC, including broadcasters, may believe that it is possible, although I should add, in fairness to the BBC’s employees, that I have yet to meet a BBC journalist who believes that it is. It would do the BBC Trust, and indeed Rona Fairhead, some good to listen sometimes to what members of their front-line infantry are saying.
Even now, it is not too late to do what should have been done long ago. A matter of such importance—putting the electoral choices of the British people directly in front of them—should be raised above the level of partisan squabbling or media meddling. Even at this late hour, a Speaker’s conference would start to take us where we need to go, towards the establishment of an independent commission to superintend broadcast election debates. Of course the public want to hear from us, but they must hear from us fairly, without bias and without the blatant incompetence that we have seen here before getting in the way.
Throughout the world, broadcasters work with independent commissions arranging political debates of this kind, and the end result is that in other countries, those debates happen. Here, it seems that the broadcasters know best. They know how to organise the debates, and they go ahead and try to do so on their terms. What has been the end result here? Chaos and confusion—and, eight weeks before the general election, no one has any idea what is happening about any of these debates.
Dr McCrea
Lord Grade, whom I mentioned earlier, writes that the BBC and the broadcasters
“are not the guardians of democracy.”
He also writes that they are “unequivocally playing politics.” Surely those are not characteristics of an independent BBC, and surely that means that an independent body to arrange the debates is required.
Mr Dodds
Again, my hon. Friend has made an important point. We must remember that we are sent to this House, having been elected by the people, to speak for the people: that is our role. We must take some responsibility, and learn the lessons of this debacle. We need to ensure that the debates happen in future, but on the basis of a model that sets their organisation and formulation aside from broadcasters and politicians.
I want the debates to happen. I sense that many Members on both sides of the House want them to happen, and that many members of the public do as well. The public want to see their politicians in front of them, debating the issues, at the appropriate juncture. The tragedy is that, at present, it is the broadcasters who are getting in the way,
During Northern Ireland questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to the late Lord Molyneaux of Killead. Let me, as leader of the DUP group at Westminster, add my own tribute. I know that Jim Molyneaux, who was a distinguished and valiant Member of the House for many years, would have relished the excitable mess—as he would have put it—that people have got themselves into. He would have been getting them together and counselling them to sit down and find a way through it, calmly and rationally. He conveyed such a sense of authority that I think he was almost born an elder statesman, rather than growing into the role. He wanted people to engage in politics in sentences and paragraphs rather than in soundbites, and that is what these debates should be about. We should be seeking to place serious, coherent, cogent arguments before the public. That is one of the reasons I believe in a debate. I believe that, sadly, Prime Minister’s Question Time has become largely an exchange of soundbites, all sound and fury and very little elucidation.
Greg Clark
I listened with respect to the proposal from the right hon. Member for Belfast North and his party. I understand the frustration they feel and why they are proposing this, but it is rather late in the day. I put on record my concern that compelling voluntary organisations to participate is not in the spirit of the way we have conducted these things. I accept the spirit in which the proposal has been made, however, and I do not think the intention is to put this on the statute book, but rather to explore the issues.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
To assist in this matter, could a Speaker’s conference be brought into existence immediately after the election to ensure we have a way forward for the following election?
Greg Clark
This will be a matter for the next Parliament, and the Government have not taken a view to that extent—and, speaking for the Government, I think it is right for me to record that. No doubt, however, having raised the debate this side of the election, if the Members of the hon. Gentleman’s party are returned after the election, they may well come back to it. The right hon. Member for Belfast North said in his speech that if anyone should compel the party leaders to give an account of themselves, it should be in this House by Mr Speaker, not by an unelected quango. This is, thank goodness, a parliamentary democracy. We do not have a presidential system, although if it was the presidential system of the United States of America, it could be that the Leader of the Opposition will be spending more time in the USA with his brother before long. Before that, however, let us give him one last chance through his spokesman here: an opportunity to appear before the nation with the other party leaders to explain why he should be Prime Minister. Our offer of this televised debate before the campaign starts still stands. Is he up for the challenge, or is he frit?
Stephen Twigg
If the broadcasters come forward with such a proposal, we will of course take it seriously.
Stephen Twigg
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Belfast North when he opened the debate today, and I entirely understand the concerns that he raised. We certainly do not see the case for treating Northern Ireland any differently from Scotland or Wales. However, we strongly believe that it is for the broadcasters, not the politicians, to determine the nature of the debates. Even at this late stage, we hope that agreement can be reached.
Before I took those interventions, I was quoting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It could of course be said that parties in opposition will be bullish about these matters. Five years ago, when the current Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he said:
“I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great”.
He agreed with us, saying:
“I think it is great we are having these debates and I hope they go some way to restoring the faith and trust into our politics because we badly need that once again in this country”.
I agree. In 2010, the then Leader of the Opposition was exasperated by any suggestion that the debates would not happen, saying:
“I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean, they happen in every country. They even happen in Mongolia, for heaven’s sake, and it’s part of the modern age that we should be in.”
Even as recently as last year, when he was no longer Leader of the Opposition but Prime Minister, he said:
“I’ve just always believed that these need to happen. It’s good for democracy. It’s good to see”;
and only five weeks ago, he said:
“I want to go and debate”.
But when push comes to shove, the Prime Minister is running scared.
We heard from the Minister today that the Conservatives want an election debate before the election campaign and before there are any party manifestos for the party leaders to be interrogated on. The Minister also talked about Prime Minister’s questions being the forum for debate. The current Prime Minister used to argue that Prime Minister’s Question Time was not a substitute for proper television debates, but he is now attempting to use it as his way out. We know what happens at Prime Minister’s questions: the Leader of the Opposition and other MPs ask a lot of questions and the Prime Minister does not answer them. The idea that that is a debate that could be a substitute for a forum in which party manifestos could be held to account is unacceptable.
Has the Prime Minister lost his nerve, or has Lynton Crosby lost the Prime Minister’s nerve for him? This is perhaps typical of this Prime Minister. He used to hug a husky and clamour for the green vote. That has gone. He used to talk about compassionate conservatism, but that has gone. He used to talk about a new way of doing politics, including the importance of TV debates, but now he is even turning his back on that, too.
We cannot allow future Prime Ministers, of whatever party, to play games with these TV debates, and I welcome what the right hon. Member for Belfast North said about creating a set of rules. We have said that a Labour Government would put the requirement to stage a fair and impartial leaders debate on a statutory footing. The Minister has done his best to make that proposal sound incredibly Orwellian and statist, but it would simply introduce a system that would work along similar lines to the current party political broadcasts, with the Broadcasters’ Liaison Group having the power to come up with proposals for the debates.
In keeping with what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, we believe that we shall have an opportunity in the next Parliament to get this right and to learn from what has happened during this Parliament in the lead-up to the election campaign. We suggest a deadline of 2017, midway through the next Parliament, for the proposed changes to be put in place. That would give everyone plenty of time to plan for the debates before the subsequent general election. This would be an important constitutional change, introducing a mechanism for the increased accountability of the Prime Minister and other party leaders. In our system, such reforms would be welcome.
Mr Donaldson
I must say that most of my constituents do not mention the TV debates to me. Nevertheless, I repeat the important point that someone mentioned earlier: the TV debates had a massive audience the last time round. We should all welcome that, and it is why it is important that we get this right.
The formula that we should be looking at, at the national level, is a debate involving the two leaders who are most likely to be the Head of the next Government of the United Kingdom. We in Northern Ireland are happy to participate in debates among the political parties at the regional level, but we are not happy with being excluded on the basis that Northern Ireland is the only region not to be represented in the proposals.
Dr McCrea
Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be wrong for elected representatives in this House to fail to speak up for Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that they ought to be heard across the United Kingdom if the Democratic Unionist party were indeed able to assist any Government in governing the United Kingdom in future?
Mr Donaldson
I agree. I have great respect for the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but I have to say that my father, who is one of her constituents, would be very upset if he lost out on the opportunity to see these debates in the general election, because he is an avid watcher of political affairs.
I hope that these matters can be resolved. Our motion is an attempt to push the issue forward and to get some common sense applied. I hope that common sense will be the outcome. The outcome that must not occur is one that excludes Northern Ireland but includes other regions where political parties are represented that do not participate or put up candidates in other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be deeply unfair if Northern Ireland were the only region that was excluded on that basis.
Government Contracts (SMEs)
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I congratulate those throughout the United Kingdom who have taken the bold step of starting a small or medium-sized enterprise, thereby creating employment in their local community and strengthening the local economy. I am sure that many Members agree that we should thank the House of Commons Library service for its excellent research in the debate pack, and I thank my own staff who have helped me to prepare for the debate.
By way of background, the usual definition of an SME is any business with fewer than 250 employees. There were 5.2 million SMEs in the United Kingdom in 2014, or more than 99% of all businesses. Most businesses in the UK are small, with fewer than 50 employees, rather than medium-sized, with 50 to 250 employees. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Government estimated that 21%, or £45.4 billion, of pay-as-you-earn received in respect of the 2010-11 tax year came from small businesses. There are also micro-businesses, which by definition have between one and nine employees. In 2014, there were 5 million micro-businesses, accounting for 96% of all businesses.
The economy is therefore dominated by small business. According to a 2013 report by the Federation of Small Businesses, small firms in the UK make up 99.3% of all businesses, contribute 51% of gross domestic product and employ 58% of the private sector work force. Research commissioned by the FSB with other partners in 2008 demonstrated substantial barriers to SMEs winning public sector contracts, indicating that 70% of SMEs rarely or never bid for Government procurement opportunities; 76% of SMEs felt that there were barriers to prevent SMEs from being fully aware of public procurement opportunities; and 55% of SMEs felt that the process of bidding for Government contracts required more time, effort and cost than their business could allow. Lack of awareness of opportunities was among the most important reasons for not bidding for a public contract.
Research also shows that SMEs are generally more successful in bidding to the private sector than to the public sector: 51% of SMEs reported a success rate of more than 40% when bidding for private sector opportunities, while 62% had a success rate of 20% or less when bidding for public sector opportunities.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in the midst of the stats coming full and fast—he must be in full flow. He is getting to the nub of things, but does he agree that many of the SMEs, in particular out in the regions, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, are very small and employ only one or two people? The time and expertise required to apply, therefore, is often not in place, and we need to support that.
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.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am sure my hon. Friend will touch on the matter, but does he accept that part of the problem lies with the procurement rules that we inherit from Europe as part of an attempt to create the single market? They lay down pretty draconian requirements when it comes to bidding for Government contracts. We ought to be looking at how those requirements can be amended and how we can raise thresholds to avoid some of the European regulations on procurement.
Dr McCrea
I agree, but even within the European regulations, there are things we can do and that the Government should do more of to alleviate some of the problems that my hon. Friend mentions.
In the 2013 autumn statement, the Chancellor included measures designed to benefit small businesses, including the introduction of a £2,000 employment allowance from April 2014, making it cheaper to employ staff aged under 21. That incentive, according to the Government, will benefit up to 1.25 million businesses and result in about 450,000 businesses, or one third of all employers, being taken out of paying national insurance contributions altogether.
After the autumn statement, the Government launched the “Small business: GREAT ambition” scheme in December 2013—a series of measures designed to make it easier for small businesses to expand, including the introduction of broadband vouchers worth up to £3,000 in 22 cities throughout the United Kingdom, which were designed to let more small firms access faster broadband connectivity. It is disappointing to note, however, that Malcolm Corbett, head of the Independent Networks Co-operative Association, has said:
“The scheme has not proved as successful as the Government had hoped”.
I therefore encourage those businesses eligible to avail themselves of the scheme before the March 2015 deadline to do so.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He touched on the need for broadband in small businesses. Especially in rural communities, we are seeing the difficulties of getting that high broadband speed. Does he feel, as I do, that that excludes a lot of small firms from bidding for contracts, especially e-procurement ones?
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.
Mr McKenzie
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Europe and the European strategy to exclude others and source products and services more locally. How does he feel about the playing of the green procurement card, which seems to be natural across Europe? Should we adopt that strategy and say that, in the spirit of green procurement, we will source as locally as possible?
Sammy Wilson
Before my hon. Friend moves on, does he accept that there is considerable merit in the point raised about the green procurement card, especially when it comes to the purchase of fresh food for schools and hospitals, which can be locally sourced? There is an environmental as well as an economic argument for sourcing such goods and services locally.
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.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to speak under you, Mr Davies; I intend to speak for only about 23 minutes.
I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). The circumstances that he has placed on the record are astonishing. They show that a small, creative company has been really screwed, quite frankly. That company deserves explanations and honesty. I hope the Minister, who I know will genuinely look into this, will be able to give the company some reassurance and support—if not today, then at some point after he has had the chance to examine these claims.
We are trying to rebalance our economy in Northern Ireland. We are trying to attract inward investment and more private sector work. That includes growing our indigenous companies and, in particular, encouraging small companies, which are the backbone of Northern Ireland—whether they are in the agri-food sector, the creative media sector, financial services or any other sector. We are trying to help those companies to grow by one or two people each year so that the economy can really rebalance itself.
Those things can be made difficult, however, if one source of job opportunities—Government contracts—is not made more readily available to local companies. There is a saying in Northern Ireland that if someone is not working for the Government, they are not actually working. That is because so many people are employed directly or indirectly in Government or departmental activities. That includes not only the obvious things, such as health and policing, but the less obvious things, such as the technical and financial sectors, where a lot of the work relates to Government activity and Government-associated activity. It is critical that local companies are not only given the opportunity to bid competitively for these opportunities, but are, as many Members have said, encouraged and actively supported in their bids.
Our job is made much harder whenever major companies in the private sector are threatened and have to take employment away. That means that more people are put on the unemployment heap, and they will then, more than likely, have to seek public sector-related employment. I have seen that in my constituency, with the announcement that almost 1,000 jobs will be lost between now and 2017. The tobacco manufacturing company JTI, formerly Gallaher, is being closed down because of Government over-regulation—the European directives on tobacco products and the Government’s gold-plating of those directives through the plain packaging legislation. That destroys employment and opportunities, and has a knock-on impact on the economy. It affects 900 people directly, and a further 200 indirectly. There is pressure on the economy from those policies.
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made the ambitious statement that he wanted to make the UK the factory of the European Community. I welcome that statement and ambition, and the aspiration to attract employment here—not only private sector employment, but more Government work flowing to private sector companies. I have a challenge for the Government: to make sure that in attracting companies and making these islands into the factory of Europe, they do not forget about the little island off the coast, and do not forget about Ulster. I challenge them to include Northern Ireland in their ambition, and to make sure that jobs go there. It is easy to kick back and say, “Look, this is really a matter for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland or some other local devolved body to deal with.” That attitude is no longer good enough.
We are all in this together and must ensure that the national Government do as much to encourage employment and inward investment as the local, devolved Administration, who are tasked with doing the same. Northern Ireland is, of course, part of the United Kingdom and wants to play its full role in contributing to it, and delivering jobs. I would like the Minister, if he cannot tell us today, to report back to us with a specific, active strategy to attract employment for small and medium-sized enterprises and factories in Northern Ireland. That will help to rebalance the economy and ensure greater opportunities to bid for contracts—particularly Government contracts, when they come up—because more companies will be operating in Northern Ireland. Government contracts are a benefit to employment, and we want companies based in Northern Ireland to be entitled to bid, and to have the benefit of such contracts.
Both Members who have already spoken in the debate have mentioned broadband, which is critical in enabling viable bids to be made for some contracts. There are many companies at Woodside industrial park in Broughshane in my constituency; it has a local radio station, agri-food manufacturers, a fantastic company called Sunstart Bakery, which makes buns for Buckingham palace, and aeroplanes and international export businesses. Those companies deserve support, but they do not have adequate broadband, and have been campaigning for it for months. That would make the difference and allow the industrial park to continue to grow, and improve its effectiveness in fulfilling contracts. That is a key area for development.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim represents the area of Aldergrove, the international gateway into Northern Ireland. It services employment not only in his constituency but in mine, and in East Antrim. There are moves afoot to try to attract a business park to that location. What an opportunity that would be for all our constituencies—a thriving business park there, supported by Government contracts and readily marketed as an area where companies could be based, with international connectivity, just 45 or 50 minutes from mainland Britain. That would be a huge opportunity for employment.
Ian Paisley
Broadband connectivity is a serious issue. The problem means that companies are deficient; some company directors send their staff home to work, because they have better broadband connectivity there than in an industrial park. That makes a mockery of the system, and the issue must be dealt with as part of a package of measures to enable the industrial parks to flow.
We are challenged by our neighbour on the island of Ireland; the Republic of Ireland has just this week announced that it intends to build a super-fast train link from Belfast to Dublin airport, so it can take business from our airports and connectivity. We must get ahead of the game. Our neighbour is entitled to compete with us, but we must beat it in the competition. We can show that we are better; we can show it a clean pair of heels. We need a kick-start, and making Government contracts readily available to Northern Ireland companies would provide one for that part of the economy. I welcome this debate for those reasons.