Investigatory Powers Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

The Home Secretary misunderstands my complaint—it is not about the fact that the material has been produced. My complaint is that the material has been produced with a timescale following thereon that is not sufficient for us to scrutinise it properly. I must make something crystal clear before I go any further: the SNP will not be morally blackmailed or bullied by Conservative Members into blind support for a Bill of dubious legality in some respects, which seeks powers that go beyond those of other western democracies. We are not going to tolerate any suggestion that by seeking proper scrutiny of the Bill and full justification for the far-reaching powers sought, we are being soft on terrorism and serious crime. I would associate myself with the other main Opposition party in that respect.

Let me give hon. Members an example of why they can be assured that the SNP is not soft on terrorism or serious crime. We have been in government in Scotland for nine years and we have shown ourselves to be a responsible Government. Although issues of national security are reserved, we have always co-operated closely with the UK Government, for example, when Glasgow airport was attacked by terrorists in 2007. Our record in fighting crime in Scotland is second to none. The Scottish Government have got recorded crime down to a 41-year low and we are committed to a progressive justice policy. We will not, therefore, stand accused of being “soft” on serious crime or terrorism, because that is simply not a fair statement to make.

In the coming years, we confidently expect to be devising the security policy of an independent Scotland, and it will be a responsible security policy that will not only seek to work closely with near neighbours on these islands, but will look to international models from other democracies and strive to take proper cognisance of international human rights norms and the rule of law. That is all we are about in our opposition and in our scrutiny of this Bill.

Our concerns about the Bill are not just our concerns. They are shared by: the parties sitting around me; many Conservative Members sitting opposite me; many of the members of three parliamentary Committees; non-governmental organisations; the technical sector; eminent legal commentators—more than 200 senior lawyers signed that letter in The Guardian today; communications service providers; and the UN special rapporteur on the right to privacy. [Interruption.] I hear somebody shout confidently from the Government Benches that the 200 lawyers who signed that letter are wrong. I suggest that he or she—I think it was probably a he—looks at the list of those who signed it and perhaps accords them a bit more respect; there is room for a difference of opinion here.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

For clarification, so that the hon. and learned Lady is not seen to be speaking for my party, may I ask whether she accepts that the balances in the Bill that the Secretary of State has outlined are, by and large, supported by people in Northern Ireland, simply because we have gone through the experience of terrorism and know how important such safeguards are for the general public?

[Joanna Cherry]

I always listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have to say because, as he says, they have experienced terrorism—indeed, they are, sadly, still experiencing it as a result of the tragic news we heard today. I apologise if I in any way included him in a sweeping statement, but I do not agree with him that the Government have got the balance right, and that is the whole purpose of my speech today.

The point I am seeking to make is that it is the job of a responsible Opposition not only to oppose responsibly and to scrutinise, but to articulate and inform public concerns. The public are concerned about this, and there is greater public knowledge about this Bill than perhaps there was last time around. A survey commissioned by Open-Xchange found that only 12% of the public believe that the Home Secretary has adequately explained the impact of the Bill to the UK public and presented a balanced argument for its introduction. I suspect that it is possibly a little unfair, pinning it all on the Home Secretary, because it is the responsibility of all of us in this House to inform our constituents about this Bill and where it is going.

Immigration Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Bill holds that risk. I will turn in a moment to the criminalisation of working, which might cause that problem.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The SNP spokesman is right that there should be a greater emphasis on employers who employ illegal immigrants, but does he accept that even the powers that the Government have at present are not being used against employers? Looking at civil penalty notices, less than half have been paid, a third have been written off and the rest remain unpaid. There does not seem to be enforcement against employers even under the legislation that is available.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Once again, I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. It has been a habit in the field of immigration to take the approach that if at first you don’t succeed, legislate and legislate again. We need not constant legislation but to use the powers that the Government already have.

The Government must focus on enforcement. We agree that we should look again at further sanctions for those who exploit undocumented labour. We will therefore look sympathetically but carefully at the wording of the proposed amended criminal offence for employers.

We have significant concern about the proposals to criminalise undocumented workers contained in clause 8. The notion of criminalising a person for working is controversial, especially given that prosecutions are already possible for breaches of immigration law under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said. The problem is an absence not of criminal sanctions but of proper enforcement measures by Government agencies. We believe strongly that the speculative possibility of shaving a small amount off the net migration target will be outweighed by the significant danger highlighted by organisations that work with victims of trafficking, and that some of the most vulnerable workers will be put in an even more vulnerable position. The Home Secretary and the Government have done good work on trafficking, slavery and exploitation, and it would be sad if that were to be undone by pushing exploited workers even further underground because of the fear of criminalisation. If that is the effect, such measures will make immigration and labour market enforcement harder rather than easier.

Another area where dangers outweigh speculative benefits concerns the right to rent provisions. The shadow Secretary of State referred to the helpful study by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Its findings are absolutely stark, and include poor compliance and widespread ignorance among the unfortunate landlords and landladies who are supposed to police the right to rent. More significantly, those findings suggest that landlords are—perhaps understandably—less likely to consider someone who does not have a British passport, which includes more than one in six of the UK population. There were also increased feelings of discrimination among people who have been refused a tenancy. We therefore object strongly to these proposals as they can only exacerbate such problems. We are equally opposed to the fact that the new more punitive measures—and indeed other measures on licensing—can be extended to Scotland by subordinate legislation without full parliamentary scrutiny in this Chamber, and without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, where decisions on housing should be made.

We have serious concerns about part 3 of the Bill which, in combination with other measures, would deliver a stunning extension of powers to immigration officers and others who are not part of the police force, and not trained or supervised accordingly. Although we intend to support the reasoned amendment, we have some difficulties with this area, and it would be useful if, when winding up the debate, the spokesperson for the official Opposition said a little more about what new enforcement powers they want.

The Bill provides immigration officers with significant new powers to enter premises, search, seize, retain and arrest, and all in the face of serious reported abuses and evidence of the inefficient exercise of existing powers. We agree with Amnesty International that

“the Home Office should be concentrating on improving its performance with the powers it already possesses rather than being handed still more powers”

and we would require the Government to make a strong case for each new power before we could support them.

Equally troubling new powers are provided to the Home Secretary on bail conditions, which we believe undermine the authority of the independent tribunal. We saw in September that there is widespread cross-party support in this Chamber for changes to immigration detention, but those are not the changes in the Bill. That cross-party support included demand for a 28-day time limit for immigration detention. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, we look forward to tabling an amendment that will include such a time limit, and we will happily work with others to secure that.

Continuing the trend towards a limitation of appeal rights, part 4 of the Bill provides for a sweeping extension of powers to require people to leave and appeal from abroad should an application for an extension of leave be rejected. Let us remember that huge numbers of these appeals are successful, yet they will become infinitely more difficult if appellants are moved hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from their lawyers and their appeal hearing—an unfair immigration trial in absentia. UK citizens will be affected, because if this issue principally concerns family life appeal rights, that disruption will be to family life with those British citizens—families will be split apart; valuable jobs and support will be lost.

Finally, we object to the fact that “destitution” is once more the immigration policy of choice in part 5 of the Bill. We share the concerns of British Red Cross that the provisions in this Bill, including an end to section 95 support for families with children who have exhausted their appeal rights, will force families with children into destitution and put them at risk of harm. Such a measure will also increase the risk of families absconding, and pass a significant increase in costs to local authorities who will still have a duty to prevent children from becoming destitute. The shadow Secretary of State rightly acknowledged a similar pilot project by a previous Labour Government, which found that 35 out of 116 families had disappeared, losing all contact with immigration services. Such measures make immigration control harder, not easier. Again, when the evidence is considered, it tends not to support the Bill.

These are not our only concerns with the Bill, and my hon. Friends will add to my criticisms. Declining the Bill a Second Reading is just a starting point, and the Scottish National party believes that we should be rolling back from the mistakes made by the coalition Government. We should go back to the drawing board to consider how we measure a successful immigration system. At the very least we should recognise that it is utterly inappropriate to include refugees, people’s husbands, wives and children, as well as bright young talent and the leaders of tomorrow who want to come here to study. We should get rid of the so-called right to rent provisions, not back them up with criminal sanctions. We should roll back the financial thresholds imposed on spouse and partner visas that are driving couples apart and creating what the Children’s Commissioner for England has called “Skype families”, and we should end the routine use of immigration detention.

We should address the concerns and challenges that can be caused by migration trends, and instead of scrapping schemes such as the migration impacts fund we should look at improved versions. We should consider schemes that encourage new arrivals to live in those parts of the UK that require them and will benefit from them most, including Scotland. Let devolved nations and regions have powers on immigration.

Border Management (Calais)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to a similar question, we are not part of Schengen and any discussions on how the Schengen rules operate are predominantly for those countries within the Schengen area. As my hon. Friend will have seen, the French have taken recent action. This is not the first time such action has been undertaken. I am aware that the Schengen countries have had discussions on the question of internal border controls, should emergency circumstances require them.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Is the Home Secretary concerned about reports today that people traffickers are now causing a proliferation of people smuggling by recruiting businessmen, students and day trippers to bring people into the country in their cars, which are subject to less scrutiny than lorry transport? What steps can be taken to deal with this new development without massively disrupting traffic through ports?

[Mrs May]

Sadly, the situation we face is that the people smugglers and the human traffickers will try every way possible to ply their trade. That is why it is so important that our law enforcement agencies, working with law enforcement organisations in Europe and elsewhere, are identifying trafficking routes, traffickers and people smugglers and can take action against them.

Devolution and Growth across Britain

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

Perhaps I will help the hon. Gentleman shortly, because I am coming straight on to Wales.

We are told that the Wales Bill will deliver a clearer, more stable devolution settlement for Wales and devolve important new powers to the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government. We understand that a funding floor is to be introduced to protect Welsh relative funding and provide certainty for the Welsh Government in planning for the future. We support measures to put Welsh devolution on a stronger statutory basis, as is the case with Scotland. We agree with taking forward proposals from the Silk commission and extending the power that the people of Wales have over their transport, elections and energy.

To come to the point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), let me be clear that Wales must not be unfairly disadvantaged by the Barnett formula. The Conservative-led coalition cut the Welsh budget by £1.5 billion. This Conservative Government must ensure that there is a fair funding settlement for Wales by introducing a funding floor. That funding floor should not be contingent on an income tax referendum.

The Queen’s Speech refers to legislation to implement the Stormont House agreement in Northern Ireland. This issue was raised in Prime Minister’s questions. The legislation will provide the architecture to deal with the past, institutional reform at Stormont and certain economic measures, including the devolution of corporation tax. In view of the concerning escalation of the dispute over welfare reform, we urge the Government to do all in their power to work with the Northern Ireland parties and, where appropriate, the Irish Government to avert this serious threat to political and economic stability in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the impasse is not resolved and the hole in the Northern Ireland budget of 6% for the remainder of this year is left unresolved, the only answer is for the Government to take over the welfare reform powers from the Northern Ireland Executive, because some parties have clearly shown themselves to be incapable of dealing with them?

[Mr Umunna]

Without wanting to fuel the dispute, I would say that the important thing is that it does not get that far. It is important that all the parties manage to find a resolution to the dispute. I know that the talks are ongoing today.

I have talked a lot about growth, but before I conclude, I want to turn to the specific growth measures in the Queen’s Speech. I sincerely hope that this Government have more success than the last one in the delivery of their policies on regional growth. In the last Parliament, having hastily and mistakenly abolished the regional development agencies that we established, the Government asked local enterprise partnerships to do basically the same things as the regional development agencies, but without the powers or the resources. Local enterprise partnerships have had mixed success. We want this Government to resource them properly and give them the support that they need to do the job that is being asked of them.

The last Government’s flagship regional growth fund was mired in chaos and delay from the start. Eventually, it managed to get moneys to successful bidders, although I suspect that a substantial amount is still gathering dust in Treasury coffers. We wait to see what further measures there will be in that respect in the Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Central to the Stormont House agreement was the implementation of welfare reform. If that proves to be impossible because of the intransigence of both the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Féin, who agree to the Stormont House agreement, will the Government take on responsibility for introducing welfare reform in Northern Ireland?

[Sajid Javid]

I am aware that there is a very delicate situation in the Northern Ireland Assembly at the moment, but we remain committed to introducing the Stormont House agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I welcome the opportunity to make a small contribution to today’s Queen’s Speech debate on the topic of devolution and growth. I would like to put the emphasis on the growth.

We heard in the Queen’s Speech that there will be renewed focus on the Stormont House agreement, which we very much welcome. The SDLP, along with four other Northern Ireland parties, had useful meetings with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan yesterday afternoon. In that regard, we are all well aware of the current very difficult issues Northern Ireland is facing, particularly over the vexed issue of welfare reform. We are fully aware that other regions share the problem, but we believe that it will have a particularly harsh and devastating effect on those with disabilities, the vulnerable and those in the margins of our society.

For the benefit of the House, I would like to remove any doubt and reaffirm that the SDLP will continue to engage with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the four other main parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government on all the challenges and issues linked to, and flowing from, the Stormont House agreement. We support devolution, and we constantly work to make Northern Ireland work within that devolution framework. The SDLP will continue to build on the strong elements of that Stormont House agreement and to improve the elements that are weak. That was our pledge when the agreement was made at Christmas on the conclusion of the talks, and it is our pledge today. We have remained true to that promise and will continue to propose progressive amendments and improvements to the current package of welfare reform in ways that we feel will best protect the vulnerable in Northern Ireland society.

The issue of welfare reform opens up a much wider debate on the current perilous, vulnerable and unsustainable economic state in which Northern Ireland survives. The need is for a radical economic agenda to address that problem. For me and my party, this is a problem that will not solve itself.

We are told that we in Northern Ireland generate tax revenues somewhere in the region of £14 billion a year, and we are said to consume almost £24 billion in public services. That is a deficit of £10 billion a year in subventions, and it is a deficit covered in part by the block grant and other subventions through the Barnett formula. We need that subvention, but we must also create some ambition and some parallel aspiration and hope for a better economic future for our children and our grandchildren.

My comments should not be taken in any way as accepting automatic reductions to the block grant or cuts, which can be avoided. Rather, I am advocating that something extra is needed—some sort of economic booster—if we are to achieve the decent economic balance that we deserve and hope for.

For many people, the situation is fiscally unsustainable, because the deficit is growing while the revenues remain flat. It is politically unsustainable, because the dynamic of political elements and developments here at Westminster are moving against us. It is socially unsustainable, because it does not encourage real political responsibility to counter the ever-present risk of social unrest in the streets. It is a problem, in short, that we all have to address. It first has to be honestly recognised and acknowledged.

[Sammy Wilson]

I hear all the hon. Gentleman’s fine words, but does he accept that the action that his party took, along with Sinn Féin, in blocking the Stormont House agreement has led to an increased deficit in the Northern Ireland budget this year? There is a hole of £600 million in the budget, which we must try to finance in the remaining nine months of the year.

[Dr McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman has missed the thrust of what I am trying to say. There is an economic problem in Northern Ireland. We had a peace process, and a political process that flowed from it. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there was to be a peace dividend, which never quite arrived. We need to find ways and means of establishing that dividend. It is not enough to have welfare reforms without jobs for people to go to.

We must recognise the problem, and acknowledge that a problem exists. If we do not acknowledge that a problem exists, how can we tackle it? It is impossible to tackle a problem if we do not clearly understand its size and severity. We need a new consensus between the two sovereign Governments—the British and Irish Governments —all the parties in Northern Ireland, the business community and society at large on a meaningful programme for economic development. If that does not happen, we will end up with instability. We need everyone on board. In fact, in some respects we need a re-engineering of our whole economic outlook.

Our problem is compounded by the fact that only about 37% of the revenue produced in Northern Ireland is generated by what might be described as the private sector. Everything else is generated, in one way or another, by Government spending, and most people agree that that is not a sustainable position. The proportions are astounding. Almost the exact reverse of what is happening in Northern Ireland is happening in the Irish Republic, a few miles away. We are subsidised, and we have subsidy politics—which means that we have politics without much ambition, without much social development, and without much economics. We want a future, and our people want a future. They want a sustainable future for their children. That is why we in the SDLP are proposing a social transformation, perhaps on a par with the peace process—it could be described as a prosperity process—which will create a normal, sustainable economy.

This is not just about rebalancing the economy; it is about transforming the economy. Everyone pays lip service to the idea of transforming as well as rebalancing the economy. The Prime Minister himself paid a great deal of attention to it before the last election, but even he had to admit that it would take a generation to sort it out. Since then, little meaningful has happened except the cuts. A more balanced economy is something that cannot be wished into existence. It will not happen by accident, and it will not happen magically. We cannot make sense of cutting corporation tax and cutting higher education and training places at the same time. We cannot solve the problem by firing public sector workers. In fact, the problem is not in the public sector at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome this commitment in the Queen’s Speech:

“To bring different parts of our country together, my Government will…bring about a balanced economic recovery.”

That is, first of all, essential economically, because, if we are to avoid certain parts of the economy overheating while resources lie idle in others, we will need to take that balanced approach. Secondly, as a Unionist, I believe it is essential politically, because nationalist parties in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are good at exploiting economic grievances—or perceived economic grievances. Therefore, it is very important that together we have an economy that is growing.

Unfortunately, the Government’s record over the previous five years has not been one of promoting a balanced economy. Yes, there have been successes—we have seen economic growth and an upturn in the economy—but it has not been universal across the United Kingdom. There are still parts where unemployment is high, where there is huge dependency on welfare and where there is still very little economic growth. It will be interesting, therefore, to see how that promise is put into practice.

Devolution is one of the ways it can be done. In Northern Ireland we have been working at coalition government with five parties—which makes the coalition Government here in Westminster look like a love-in, because we have been dealing with people who are, quite frankly, almost impossible to work with. Despite that, with the powers we have had we have kept unemployment in Northern Ireland at this stage of the economic cycle at a level that would not have been experienced in the past. We have promoted the best inward investment of any region in the United Kingdom, and we have built more social and affordable housing, despite the cuts in capital budgets, by using resources and selling assets.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

All that is threatened by the abstentionist policy of Sinn Féin, who do not take their seats here, and by the SDLP, who do. They object to the welfare reform proposals that have been introduced. Does our economic course in Northern Ireland depend on the settlement of that process in Northern Ireland?

[Sammy Wilson]

It is jeopardised by some actions of the coalition partners, and I want to get a commitment from the Government on that issue.

In my experience over the past five years, when a case has been made for additional powers for devolved government, the Government have responded. We have seen the limited devolution of air passenger duty to the Northern Ireland Executive; the promised devolution of corporation tax, which my hon. Friend says is now being put in jeopardy; the exemption from the carbon price floor because of the structure of our energy market; flexibility over budget spending; and carry-forward powers. All those things have been good, positive ways in which the Government have responded in the past. I look forward to working with them, given the commitment shown in the Queen’s Speech.

During the election, we presented our Northern Ireland economic plan. It includes a range of measures, some of which require additional spending, changes in legislation and co-operation between central Government and the devolved Government, but they are all designed to help Northern Ireland reduce its dependency on the public sector, grow the local economy and increase the private sector. I look forward to working with the Government in implementing those plans and testing their commitment to using devolution to promote uniform growth across the United Kingdom.

Although some central Government policies might make sense in the wider UK context, they have a disproportionate impact on parts of the economy that, because of our structural differences, the historical difficulties we have experienced and our geographical disadvantage, are not robust or that are different and therefore require different treatment.

I am interested in the promise in the Gracious Speech to introduce legislation to give effect to the Stormont House agreement in Northern Ireland. It is a very important agreement because it is about not just implementing welfare reform, but devolving corporation tax and giving the Northern Ireland Executive the power to borrow in order to effect structural changes in the public sector. It is also about getting additional funding for infrastructure developments and the ability to pay off previous loans by having flexibility in our spending arrangements.

A lot is at stake with the Stormont House agreement, and yet it has been put in jeopardy by the refusal of the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Féin to implement one important aspect of it, namely welfare reform. Despite the fact that, in an Assembly vote, the vast majority of Members voted to put through the agreement and welfare reform part of it, because of our constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland and the requirement for a cross-community vote, it has been blocked. As a result, not only have many of the important things that would have been available to the devolved Government been stopped, but we have a hole in this year’s budget of more than £600 million—or 6% of the budget—which is fiscally impossible to repair at this time.

If the situation persists, there is one power that the Government must bring back to this House. It will disadvantage the people of Northern Ireland because the concessions will be lost, but we cannot afford for welfare reform to be a blockage to all the other changes. Although we are talking about devolving more powers, if parties persistently refuse to implement the welfare reform package—which I suspect most Members of this House would be jealous of because of the concessions Northern Ireland has been given—I appeal to the Government to take that power back.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Terrorist Attacks (Paris)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

This is very important. As I indicated earlier, I have met the CST and other Jewish community leaders on a number of occasions. My last meeting with them was shortly before the Christmas recess. We are committed to ensuring that the work of the trust and others, in keeping Jewish communities safe, is supported. As I also indicated earlier, the police talk with the CST and others, and indeed with individual institutions, about what protective security can be provided. As I understand it, they have been providing extra patrols in certain areas to ensure that greater support is given. I am very clear that nobody should feel that they are likely to be subject to the sort of anti-Semitic attacks that, sadly, we have seen too many of in the United Kingdom in the past year. It is very important that people are able to live in this country, follow their faith and live a life free from fear.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Last week, while gunmen were rampaging through the streets of Paris, a leading Muslim spokesman in Northern Ireland, Dr Al-Wazzan, was telling the BBC that the west had brought this on itself through its foreign policy. He later withdrew those remarks under pressure. Will the Home Secretary join me in calling for all those who have leadership in the Muslim community to say and do nothing that would give any justification for people to believe that terrorism in the name of their faith is ever justified, and to realise that such words only breed and create division?

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely right that it is important for those in leadership roles in the Muslim community to make it very clear, as many have been doing, that these terrorist attacks are not about their religion and their faith and are not in their name. It is very important to send a very clear message that the only people responsible for terrorist attacks are the terrorists themselves.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am too long in the tooth to try to speak on behalf of my party leader, as the hon. Gentleman might expect, but I would most certainly support an amendment of that kind, and I would seek to persuade other men and women of like mind and good sense to do exactly the same.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken a lot about the rights of those who may be excluded as a result of this provision, but would he care to say something about people who feel under threat from those who have gone from this country, trained to be terrorists, committed acts of terrorism and are likely to come back here to commit acts of terrorism? What has he got to say to the people who feel threatened? What safeguards would he put in place for them?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

In my own defence, when I first got to my feet—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present at the time—I went out of my way to applaud the fact that the Home Secretary and the former Attorney-General had both emphasised the nature of the threat that we face. I am in no doubt about it as I am a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but that does not mean that we should close our eyes to the possibility of an illegality that might be challenged in the Supreme Court, which would have an enormously undermining effect on legislation of the kind that we are proposing. It is an argument in favour of careful consideration, which I am sure that this Bill will have as it passes through Committee.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am confident that some of the measures we have taken to deal with concerns raised about the EAW, such as proportionality, are measures that are available to other member states and which have not been challenged in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Home Secretary has mentioned the importance of contact with the devolved Administrations and police services in other parts of the UK. What contact has she had on these issues with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

[Mrs May]

There has been considerable contact with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland; there has been contact with all the devolved Administrations on this matter. I have personally had a discussion with the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland about it. If the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, I will refer to the difference that the EAW makes to extradition as between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is an important issue, and if we were to come out of the EAW, it would be a matter of concern both to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and to the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I have made clear my view that our relationship with the European Court of Justice could well be one of the measures that should be part of the renegotiation and part of the process of looking again at our relationship with the European Union, which would happen after the election of a Conservative Government in May 2015, leading to an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. I hope that that is now clear to the hon. Gentleman.

I want to discuss some of the issues surrounding the European arrest warrant, given the degree of concern that it has raised among Members in the past. One such issue is that of lengthy pre-trial detention, which was highlighted by the case of Andrew Symeou—a case that has been championed relentlessly by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) in the interests of his constituent and his constituent’s family. Our reforms of the arrest warrant mean that, when the requesting country is not trial-ready, we will not extradite people. Had the measures that we have now passed been in place at the time, they would have allowed Mr Symeou to raise, in his extradition hearing, the question of whether a decision to charge him and a decision to try him had been made. It is very likely that they would have prevented his extradition at the stage at which he was due to be surrendered, and could have prevented it altogether.

We have reformed the arrest warrant to make it possible for cases to be heard in the requesting country before an extradition hearing, either by video conference or by temporary transfer, with the consent of the person concerned. That may lead to a withdrawal of the arrest warrant in some cases. We have also reformed it so that British citizens, and others, can no longer be extradited for minor offences. The reform came into effect in July, and has already resulted in the turning down of 21 arrest warrants. That has freed police and court time so that more serious matters can be dealt with, and, crucially, has protected individuals from the sledgehammer of extradition for minor offences.

The Government have reformed the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants when it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. It has done so 59 times since our reforms came into force in July.

Our reforms have been implemented, and they are already making a difference. I believe that the arrest warrant is operating more fairly, and it is British judges who have the final say on whether or not to extradite people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—whose wife is an extradition judge—said last week,

“The suggestion that there is no judicial oversight of European arrest warrants in this country is nonsense.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 1228.]

That is absolutely right, and, thanks to our reforms, British judges are now better able to protect the interests of British citizens.

I am also pleased to have the opportunity to remind the House of a few of the problems involved in the alternative system of extradition that we would have to fall back on if we were not part of the arrest warrant, namely the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition. First, returning to that convention would require changes to domestic legislation in a number of member states. While we would be able to control our own legislative urgency, we would not be able to control what other member states did. For some, it would take months or even years to make the necessary legislative changes. The Netherlands, for example, has made it clear to us that it would take at least 18 months for it to change its domestic legislation, which would mean that UK criminals could travel to Holland with impunity and vice versa. That would have made the UK a virtual “safe haven” for some of Europe’s most dangerous criminals, and would have allowed UK criminals to hide from the law, which is certainly not an option that appeals to me.

Secondly, using the convention would mean a return to the days when extradition requests were sent to Ireland, perhaps more in hope than in expectation. Before the introduction of the arrest warrant, fewer than 10% of our requests to Ireland for individuals connected with terrorism resulted in their being returned to this country. Members should compare that with the present situation. We are not aware of a single request to Ireland for terrorism-related offences that has been refused. That is surely why—as I said earlier—the authorities in both Dublin and Belfast are such strong supporters of the arrest warrant and our continued participation in it.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Home Secretary accept that the comparison she is making is not a fair one, given that many of the extradition requests that were made to the Irish Republic were turned down often on political grounds? Of course, those grounds have now been removed because of the constitutional changes that have been made recently.

[Mrs May]

I understand that the political scenario has changed over the years, but the Justice Minister in Belfast and the Justice Minister in Dublin in the Republic of Ireland have been keen to impress on the Government their concern to ensure that the UK remained in the European arrest warrant, precisely because it now provides a much smoother and easier process to enable extraditions to take place successfully.

Criminal Law

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Given that the Home Secretary wrote yesterday in The Sunday Times that the European arrest warrant and 34 other measures were in the package proposed by the Government, and given that she knew that the European arrest warrant was one of the most controversial of those measures, will she explain why she has included those issues in the regulations that we are discussing today but left out the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

It has been made clear that it is possible to discuss the other measures in our debate today, and I have explained why the regulations include only certain measures—those required to be transposed into UK legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was right to refer to the package of 35 measures being the product of tough negotiations in Europe. In July, when we last gave Government time for a debate on the issue, I informed the House that good progress had been made in negotiations with the European Commission and other member states and that we were close to reaching an in-principle agreement. The matter had been discussed at the General Affairs Council in June, but some member states had expressed technical reservations. I published Command Paper 8897, which included the full list of measures discussed at the General Affairs Council and impact assessments of each of those measures. I had hoped to be able to return the matter to Parliament for consideration before the summer recess, but the reservations expressed by other member states meant it was not possible to do so. In September, two of those member states lifted their reserves and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that on Friday, Spain, the one remaining member state blocking the deal, formally lifted its reservation in Brussels.

I believe that the deal we have negotiated in Europe and that we are bringing before the House today is a good one for the United Kingdom. It includes important tools such as SIS II, the second-generation Schengen information system, which the United Kingdom is scheduled to join shortly. That will further strengthen our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, including individuals wanted in their own countries for serious crimes such as rape and murder.

The package of measures we have negotiated includes Europol, which does excellent work under its British director, Rob Wainwright, to tackle cross-border crimes. Three weeks ago, for example, Europol played a key role in Operation Trivium, a UK-wide operation led by West Midlands police that saw police forces from 14 European countries jointly targeting foreign criminals in the UK. Senior officers from across Europe came together at the control centre in Edgbaston to witness the operation in action and Europol provided a mobile unit to co-ordinate activities on the ground. In the first 48 hours of the operation, more than 700 suspected criminals were arrested and a further 950 were handed on-the-spot fines for minor offences, cautioned or summonsed to court. They included a 51-year-old Polish man arrested on suspicion of involvement in a fraud of more than £11,000.

Europol also played a key part in tackling the horsemeat scandal that so appalled this House and the British public last year, as did Eurojust, another of the measures in our package.

National Crime Agency

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Campbell]

I understand that the Chief Constable has had at least one—possibly even several—meetings with the SDLP and has assured it on the issue of his role and co-operation with the Policing Board by repeating what was said in the May 2013 statement that “nothing proceeds without agreement” in connection with the work of the NCA, and that the Chief Constable is

“held accountable for NCA operations via the Policing Board.”

The hon. Lady will know that members of her party and of Sinn Fein serve on the Policing Board.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend not find it odd that the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) has raised the issue of accountability for the NCA when her party signed up to policing at a time when SOCA had no degree of accountability through the Policing Board? The SDLP had no objections then, but now that we are discussing SOCA’s replacement apparently the whole issue of accountability is important.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point of today’s debate is to say that, while discussions between the Chief Constable and the SDLP continue, there are 140-plus criminal gangs operating through the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland and the UK and smuggling not millions, but tens of millions of pounds-worth of illegal drugs. Some of that activity could be prevented by the full operation of the NCA.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. I had hoped, given my previous role as Minister of State for Northern Ireland, that this debate would not be necessary. I am sure that all Members across the House held that hope. I have the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland beside me and the former Minister of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), behind me. We have all worked hard to avoid getting to this position.

It is important that the tone of this debate is correct, because what we are trying to do is to protect people. I will talk about protecting people not just from terrorists, but from paedophiles. I want to protect people’s children from the abhorrent things that are going on. We have not been able to help Northern Ireland with those matters as we have other parts of the country.

I do not want to speak for too long, because the debate started slightly late owing to the urgent question and it is important that everybody who needs to speak has time to do so, particularly those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. However, it is important that I set out, particularly for the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), the guarantees that have been given on how the NCA would operate in Northern Ireland to ensure that it protects all the people of Northern Ireland, just as it protects everybody else in this great nation of ours.

I say strenuously that there have been huge negotiations over a protracted period. I left the Northern Ireland Office more than 18 months ago. There have been many discussions, many of them bilateral, not only within the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, but with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

I pay tribute to the excellent job that David Ford has done. I worked closely with him when I was Minister of State for Northern Ireland. He was open and honest, and his intention is purely and simply to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the best police force and are safe in their homes, no matter where they come from. I also pay tribute to Matt Baggott, who was an exemplary Chief Constable. Since becoming the Minister for Policing, I have heard from other police forces around the country that people literally stand up and applaud when he walks in the room. That very often happens when any officer from the Police Force of Northern Ireland walks in. That is a tribute to the work that they do. I pay tribute to their bravery and the work that they do, just as I pay tribute to all police officers across the United Kingdom.

We have made it clear that the director general of the NCA would not be able to task the Chief Constable of the PSNI directly. We have provided that the director general of the NCA cannot be designated with the powers and privileges of a constable in Northern Ireland. We are committed to consulting the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland on the preparation of the NCA’s annual plan, so that it knows exactly what we are doing. We have provided that the Home Secretary must consult the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland before setting any strategic priorities or changing the NCA’s framework document.

The negotiations in Northern Ireland have gone much further than the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Police primacy in Northern Ireland would remain with the Police Service of Northern Ireland if the NCA operated there, and its agreement would be needed before the NCA operated. The NCA would be answerable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. These details have been set out before, but it is important to set them out again today. When operating in Northern Ireland, the NCA would be subject to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland. The NCA would need the agreement of the police force prior—I stress, prior—to the use of covert techniques, such as covert human intelligence sources.

The accountability of the NCA in Northern Ireland will be completely different from that in any other part of the United Kingdom in order, understandably, to address the concerns within Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the Minister for outlining in great detail the degree of accountability the NCA would have in Northern Ireland. Will he compare and contrast that with the scrutiny the NCA faces in other parts of the United Kingdom to illustrate just how far the Government have gone on this point?

[Mike Penning]

As I said, the way in which the NCA operates in the rest of the country is set out in the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The matters that are specific to Northern Ireland, to which I have just alluded, have come from the negotiations with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the work of David Ford. That is different; those sorts of understandings are quite specific and I wanted them put on the record. The issue has been debated extensively in Northern Ireland, and I want to put any fear away once and for all in this debate and address Northern Ireland’s concerns, because those issues are specific to Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I think the best figure was given to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, and a huge amount of work needs to be done. As the head of the NCA said only yesterday, it is unrealistic to say that we will be able to go after, prosecute and convict in every single case—the honesty was refreshing, but we will continue with that work. The figure given yesterday of 50,000 was not definitive. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is pushing the issue as that figure is public and in most of the papers today, and it is not relevant to the situation with the Northern Ireland NCA. Today’s debate covers work that is perhaps not in traditional areas, such as the gang culture, paramilitaries and so on.

I say to all political parties in Northern Ireland, and to its people whom we represent—as a member of Her Majesty’s Government, I represent everybody in that way, whether we have devolution or not—that we must look enormously carefully at what the NCA could do. Rather than looking at the problems that it might possibly cause, we should consider what is factually correct.

[Sammy Wilson]

In those last remarks, is the Minister not illustrating the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)? This is not an issue for the people of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland want the National Crime Agency. This is not even a matter for the parties generally in Northern Ireland. It is a matter for two specific parties. Why is the Minister not willing to name them and shame them?

[Mike Penning]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am neither shy nor bashful in naming those who are responsible. The two political parties that have so far not agreed are the SDLP and Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein is not here. That is its choice, at the end of the day. I hope that the SDLP, in response to the debate and the careful, rational way in which we have put the special provisions in place in Northern Ireland, can be convinced—the other party may be listening to the debate elsewhere—that this is harming constituents. It is harming the people they are put in place to protect. Rather than having such an ideological position—we need to wipe away the ideology—we need to get the NCA working in Northern Ireland like it does in the rest of this country. We need to stop funds going to people whom we do not want them to go to, and we need to protect the children. That is what we are elected to do and that is what the public expect from this debate. I want to put it on the record now that Her Majesty’s Government will support the motion. This is a very important debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I hope the Minister does not take what I say as being hypercritical. I am trying to provide some perspective. We have had two and a half years and we have to work through this. I know how difficult it is; I have been there. I am looking for further impetus to get a resolution.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he has addressed the issue, especially to the SDLP. Does he agree, however, that most people will find it rather strange that the slavish adherence to the Patten principles goes beyond the protection of children from abuse—whether it be on the internet or from other predators on children—and that the SDLP counts the Patten principles as more important than the protection of children in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Hanson]

I think that the operation of the NCA is essential for dealing with child pornography, trafficking, drugs, fuel and money laundering, particularly in the Northern Ireland context where highly organised criminal gangs operate on the fringes of the republican movement and the loyalist movement. The motion under discussion says that we want to sign up to the NCA and it has my support. The Minister has my support and that of the Opposition Front-Bench team to reach such a resolution. I simply want to see additional energy—I know the Minister will provide it—to ensure that this matter is brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am glad that two things have emerged during this debate—first, that this is not some esoteric discussion among the parties in Northern Ireland who cannot agree on some issues and therefore dance around the various points. As members of both Front-Bench teams and other speakers have accepted, the subject has huge implications for the constituents of all Members of the House. If Northern Ireland becomes, as it is becoming, a back door for serious international crime, that impacts on the streets and the people in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The second theme that I hope has come through in this debate is that despite the enormity of the issues at stake, the objections, as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), are vacuous. I want to deal with some of the objections raised today by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and the reasons why the SDLP has blocked the proposals.

Many people in Northern Ireland and in the House will find it rather odd that, because of the inability of the NCA to operate fully in Northern Ireland, people who abuse children are getting away with it, people who are laundering money are getting away with it, people who are smuggling drugs are getting away with it, people who are engaged in the smuggling of fuel and so on are getting away with it and building up vast empires. People who are engaged in all these activities are able to keep their ill-gotten gains because of the absence of the NCA.

What is the objection? The SDLP claims that it wants to make sure that the Patten principles are adhered to, it wants to ensure that the accountability mechanisms are all in place, and it wants clarification that there is no clash in the code of ethics. Meanwhile the criminals, who do not give a stuff about Patten principles and all the rest of it, are walking off free. That is the importance of what we are debating here today. Let us look at what is being asked for.

As has been pointed out, we want to make sure that the ineffectiveness of SOCA, which has been described, is not repeated in the National Crime Agency. Of course, there is already a mechanism for doing that. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has pointed out that there is far more accountability in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there is concern about the effectiveness of the NCA, let us remember that it must bring its plan for the year to the Policing Board; it cannot just say, “This is our plan.” The NCA can then be questioned about the implementation of the plan. Not only that, and just in case the National Crime Agency decides, “Well, Northern Ireland is only small beer and we are not too worried about it,” it is required to show how its plan marries up with the Policing Board’s plan for policing in Northern Ireland.

So if the SDLP is concerned about how to ensure that the National Crime Agency will be relevant and effective in Northern Ireland, there is the accountability mechanism. The fact that the NCA has to go along to the Policing Board, which comprises members of the SDLP, my party and all the other parties in Northern Ireland, as well as independents, means that there is every opportunity to make sure that the plan it is putting forward will be effective in Northern Ireland. The NCA will certainly not be effective if it cannot even operate in Northern Ireland. In the absence of full implementation of the Patten principles, whatever that means, that seems to be the alternative that the SDLP is suggesting,

[Dr McCrea]

Does my hon. Friend think that perhaps the SDLP has tried to tie up the NCA so much that it becomes totally ineffective, just as the hands of the security services were tied behind their backs when they were fighting the IRA?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

That is always the danger. The more levels of accountability are put in place, the more bodies may be restricted in their operation.

The next point made by the hon. Member for South Down was that we have never addressed the issues of accountability. Let us look at what is in place. Before the NCA operates its statutory powers in Northern Ireland, it has to get that cleared by the Chief Constable, who, in turn, is accountable to the Policing Board. If something goes wrong and there are complaints, the NCA is totally accountable to the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland. That is the same degree of accountability as for any other police officer. Once we examine the idea that the issue of accountability is not being addressed, it is seen to be clearly incorrect. It is nonsense. It is a case of dancing on the head of a pin while the criminals walk off with their ill-gotten gains.

The hon. Lady’s next point was about whether covert operations will be subject to the RIPA— Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—requirements, and so on. Again, covert operations will have to be notified to the Chief Constable, who will be aware of the conditions under which those operations will be undertaken.

[Naomi Long]

More than that, the Chief Constable will be accountable for those operations in a way that would not have been the case previously; if people wish to query decisions that have been made, he can be held to account by the Policing Board.

[Sammy Wilson]

If I had got to my next sentence, that is exactly the point I was going to make. The Chief Constable goes along to the Policing Board on a monthly basis and can be questioned on all the issues that the board is concerned about and all the issues that concern him.

The last point that the hon. Member for South Down made is that all this has to be wrapped up in statute. An assurance has already been given; I have heard the Justice Minister give it. Indeed, when I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Executive, the assurance was given not only that there would be a legislative consent motion here establishing the powers of the NCA, but that any additional statutory changes that were needed in law would go through the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It is not the case that the conditions of accountability are not being met. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked for an explanation of what is happening. I do not want to take the worst possible explanation, but there are only two interpretations I can think of: first, that the SDLP is so scared of Sinn Fein that it will not take a courageous step on an essential element of policing; or secondly—this is even more petty and childish—that because the term “national” is in the name, the SDLP cannot accept it. We could either batter SDLP Members into submission in this debate or persuade them, but even if we did persuade them by the end of the debate, the situation would not be resolved: given the way the Northern Ireland Assembly works, Sinn Fein has a veto on any legislation because it holds a certain percentage of seats on the Executive.

I have a challenge for the Government. If, even after all the safeguards that the nationalists have said they want have been put in place, there is still a refusal, do the Government have the courage to say, “If you’re going to put the security of people in the whole of the United Kingdom in jeopardy, if you’re going to allow Northern Ireland to be used as a back door for international criminal gangs, and if Northern Ireland is to be the bank for criminal gangs, we are going to put an end to that by putting through legislation—we will take it out of your hands.” That would be a real step of courage, and that is the test.

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point which follows the earlier point that, whatever the SDLP says, the critical issue is the attitude of Sinn Fein, which is not even prepared to engage on the issue. The Government here at Westminster cannot avoid this issue and, as with a number of issues in Northern Ireland, they are going to have to step up to the plate in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland on both sides.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is, of course, in the interests of not only the people of Northern Ireland, but the people of the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the challenge. If Sinn Fein are dancing on the head of a pin, the Government must stop pussy-footing around them and make a decision.

[Lady Hermon]

In fairness to our friends in the SDLP, would it not be very helpful if either the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) or the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) took the opportunity to intervene on the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in order to confirm that the SDLP is courageous enough to allow the full remit of the National Crime Agency to extend to Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein? Will they confirm to the House that they have that courage, which I would like to think they do?

[Sammy Wilson]

I am coming to the end of my speech, but I would certainly be happy to give way to either of those two SDLP Members if they would like to intervene. At the end of the day, the important thing is that we get the opportunity to get proper arrangements in Northern Ireland to ensure that criminality is not rewarded. We are one year on since the start of the National Crime Agency, but the only people in Northern Ireland who are celebrating are the criminals who are escaping the long arm of the law because of this impasse.

Child Sex Abuse (Rotherham)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

May I thank and commend my right hon. Friend for the work that he did when he chaired the national group and for work that he did with internet service providers in relation to abusive images of children on the internet, which can fuel interest and action in these areas? My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention will bring the national group together very soon, and it will consider the report of Alexis Jay to see whether it needs to do any further work to ensure proper co-ordination. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says: bringing together Departments to address these issues may sound simple, but it is crucial if we are to deal with these issues.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is right that the perpetrators must be hunted down and brought to justice. Does she also agree that officials who failed to do their duty must not be allowed to get off scot-free? It does not matter whether we are talking about the police who failed to uphold the law and let rapists walk free, councillors who put community relations above the interests of vulnerable children or council officials who deliberately destroyed evidence to hide the trail of betrayal. Does she not agree that, far too often in the past, people have either been moved aside, promoted or given pay-offs and that only rubs salt into the wounds?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. When people see somebody who has failed in their duty simply moving away to a similar job in another authority or another police force and nothing is done about it, then that does add insult to the original injury.