Immigration Bill (Second sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Craig Whittaker]

Q 132 So there is no real evidence—

Richard Lambert: That is what I am saying: there is no strong evidence of discrimination, although there is the potential there, and some minor level of concern may emerge in the focus group.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 133 Will the panel give us their assessment of what numbers might be involved in the area of policy that we are talking about? Do you have any assessment in particular of how many prospective tenants might present themselves to your members, or how many bank accounts in the case of Mr Leenders?

Richard Lambert: We can talk about how many households are in the private rented sector—there are about 4.4 million at the moment—and I think there is a turnover rate of about 25% to 30% a year, so we are looking at just over 1 million to 1.25 million new tenancies a year.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 134 Of those, do you have a sense of how many might fall under the provisions of the Bill?

Richard Lambert: None whatsoever.

David Smith: In a sense, they should all be falling under it, because landlords are required to check every new tenant, so one would assume that 1.2 million of them will require checks. How many of those people will then be found to have established the right to rent is perhaps one of the most hotly contested questions before this Committee, I would have thought.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 135 That is exactly what I am driving at. Could you give us your view on it?

David Smith: We have no information, clearly, as to how many unlawful immigrants there are within the private rented sector. The reality, as I think has been established before, is that landlords who are routinely and knowingly renting to illegal immigrants are probably breaking the law in a vast range of other exciting ways and are therefore intentionally well below the radar. Landlords who do not know that they are renting to illegal immigrants do not know that they are renting to illegal immigrants. Therefore, the information is extremely hard to come by.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 136 Just sticking with the two landlords, if I may, before coming to Mr Leenders on the same question, your organisations are membership organisations, clearly, and you know how many members you have. Do you have any sense of how many members you do not have? In other words, how many landlords are under the radar, to use your phrase?

Richard Lambert: That again is difficult to say—for under the radar. I estimate that there are probably about 100,000 landlords in all the landlord associations throughout the country—ours and the many little local landlord associations that exist. So there are probably about 1.4 million landlords who are not in landlord associations. It is then about what you mean by “under the radar”. If you mean the people who are completely illegitimate, who are renting beds in sheds and are probably landlords incidentally, because actually what they are is organised criminals and the housing element just comes in as part of that, they are more interested in prostitution, people trafficking, money laundering and so on, who knows? We could not tell that. What we do know is that there are probably about 1.3 million to 1.4 million people renting out property who are not directly engaged with our organisations or any other organisation. Our concern is always where they get their information from, how they know that what they are doing is the right thing, and how they learn about what is best practice or, indeed, about changes in the law.

David Smith: You should be aware that of landlords not in our organisations a significant number will be using letting agents who, themselves, are perhaps not always perfect either—a significant percentage of them do not fall under any professional body. A goodly percentage of them are aware of their responsibilities and will no doubt learn about them as they go forward. In a sense, there is a force multiplier effect by engaging landlord organisations, which can capture a good percentage of landlords, and by engaging letting agent organisations, which will pick up a lot of landlords who choose not to join a landlord membership body.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 137 Mr Leenders, any reflections?

Eric Leenders: I think we can identify 123 million instant access accounts. If we were to apply the experience from the Immigration Act of roughly 1% of searches being referred to the Home Office, that would potentially lead to a working assumption of about 1 million or 1.2 million searches being referred to the Home Office. That, in itself, surfaces an operational point about the readiness of the Home Office to deal with that volume in the initial wave of searches in the first quarter of the implementation of the Act. That is just one of those technical issues that we would like to work through. We might be able to find mitigants to that. For example, we might be able to strip out those who currently hold UK passports, but that is detail that we can work through in secondary legislation. I would not see that as a primary legislative point at all.

[Sarah Champion]

Q 138 I have two small, mopping-up questions. Mr Leenders, you went through the customer service and administrative burdens that the legislation puts on you, but are you largely in favour of it? Are there any unintended consequences of the legislation that we should be aware of?

Eric Leenders: We do not have a policy position on the Bill, nor did we on the Immigration Act 2014. There are some customer service points that give a little cause for concern. Referring customers with a seven-day service level agreement to the Home Office leaves them, effectively, in limbo for a period, and that customer might, quite justifiably, be entitled to an account. We do not feel that is the best experience, so we would want to work through one or two details like that. We would certainly want to have a period of testing—we are already encouraged by the Treasury giving some consideration to its own pilot exercise—presumably during the formulation of the secondary legislation, such that the customer impacts are minimised so far as possible.

Modern Slavery Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

Let me reassure the right hon. Lady that we seek to support the Lords in their amendment. If the House divides on the issue later today and the Division is lost, we will certainly support the Government’s proposals to carry forward the review, because we do not wish to see that stopped. However, I think that it is important to reflect on what the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, a former Government Deputy Chief Whip, said: there are too many victims for us to say that this is a matter for another day. The Government’s proposal would put the matter off for another day. I do not think that that other day should await the outcome of the general election; we should do it now. The Government have a clear view from the Lords, given the vote that was won by Lord Hylton, an independent peer, a few weeks ago, when the Government were defeated.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

On the subject of waiting for another day, is there not a problem with Lords amendment 72? If a victim of slavery left their current employer and that employer was able to go on to abuse more victims, both that day and another day, the Lords amendment would do little to tackle that, whereas the Government’s amendment in lieu would do that, because it would prevent victims from being left for another day.

[Mr Hanson]

There is the National Crime Agency, there is legislation against abuse and, as Kalayaan has said, there is a large number of overseas domestic workers who are currently not paid a penny. If the hon. Lady found somebody who had left their employment, was able to untie their visa and move on and who could still pass on reports on the national minimum wage or other issues to the National Crime Agency, the Lords amendment would not stop that aspect being enforced. There is a national minimum wage now and it should be enforced. There is a National Crime Agency if people are undergoing abuse. The amendment would allow people to switch employers and ultimately, if they wished to do so, make a report and recommendations to a proper authority. At this point we need to get to the basics of how to untie the visa so that individuals can leave and avoid abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful. There is no disagreement between us, but the issue for me is still the position with regard to the tied visa. I do not think that the Government’s proposal in the long term, following the review that was undertaken effectively on a cross-party basis by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, is sufficient for the purpose.

[Chloe Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman’s words belie him. Just a few sentences ago he said he wanted to unpick that visa knot for others. With the greatest respect, it is not those others that we are discussing today; it is the victims of slavery, as my hon. Friend the Minister has just said. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to do more or does he want to do what she outlined?

[Mr Hanson]

With due respect to the hon. Lady, under the Government’s proposal an individual would have to find a way to report themselves and to activate the national referral mechanism and get involved in that, at a time when they are working for an employer. The principle that I want to support is movement on untying the visa.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, I am slightly confused. It worries me that we are having a debate about immigration when we should be debating slavery, which is what this Bill is about.

[Chloe Smith]

Does the Minister agree that we seem to have heard the Labour Front-Bench team and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) being what some might call soft on immigration, in the sense of opening up this debate to all workers? The hon. Gentleman said explicitly that this was not just about victims, but about everybody.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have been confused. I thought we were discussing modern slavery, yet I have heard that this is about opening up immigration rules.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller). Like her, I welcome the breadth of the Bill. I wish to focus on clauses 40 to 43 in part 2, which relate to cybercrime.

I do not usually speak in this House on foreign affairs, national security or organised crime. However, the cyber-security of our citizens and our country is hugely important and ranks alongside those more traditional spheres. In the words of The Economist:

“After land, sea, air and space, warfare has entered the fifth domain: cyberspace.”

The UK Government rightly already take these issues seriously. The 2010 national security strategy rated cyber-attacks as a tier 1 threat. That is why, despite a tight fiscal situation, they set £650 million aside over four years to develop the UK’s response. The cyber-strategy sets out four objectives: first, for the UK to tackle cybercrime and be one of the most secure places in the world to do business in cyberspace; secondly, for the UK to be more resilient against cyber-attacks and better able to protect our interests in cyberspace; thirdly, for the UK to have helped to shape an open, stable and vibrant cyberspace that the UK public can use safely, and which supports open societies; and fourthly, for the UK to have the cross-cutting knowledge, skills and capability it requires to underpin all of the above. It is that document that leads us here today through its commitment to reviewing existing legislation, for example the Computer Misuse Act 1990, and which led to the mention of this Bill in the Queen’s Speech.

I ought to mention that I held ministerial responsibility in this area. As a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, I supported the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), in leading the national cyber-security programme. It is right to note in passing that it is correct to give that kind of cross-cutting leadership to the Cabinet Office, because in addition to everything the Minister here today is doing, she needs the co-operation of other Ministers and other Departments to keep us safe in the cyber-domain.

Cyber-security is perhaps in our minds owing to the attack on Sony late last year. Others have included the issue in their reviews of 2015: Luke Johnson, who floated Pizza Express in 1993, says that his big tip for 2015 is to get into cyber; US News, in its resolutions for 2015, argues that 2014 was the year that the hack went viral; and Huawei, a Chinese firm well known in the sector, continues to publish white papers, most recently in December, carrying the 100 things that its clients most need for their cyber-security. It is worth noting in passing that its papers are authorised by a former UK Government chief information officer. It is therefore timely to be looking today at the measures we need to better tackle cybercrime in Britain. Freedom from cybercrime is, needless to say, but one part of our cyber-security. The Bill is only one part perhaps of a whole framework of rights, responsibilities, freedoms and offences that one might argue we should debate to enable Britain to fulfil the four objectives: to be skilled, to be resilient and to be economically secure, but also open and free.

I have three points to make on the Bill. First, the most recent explicitly relevant legislation, the Computer Misuse Act 1990, is 25 years old. It is necessary to review and update any law after 25 years. Secondly, the UK needs to be able to make the national security and jurisdiction aspects contained in the clauses work effectively. Thirdly, there is the attitude that citizens need to take to their own cyber-security. Let me start with the first point.

Let us cast our minds back and ask what did not exist in 1990. I mentioned one of the entrepreneurs behind Pizza Express. Britain in 1990 had only a dozen Pizza Express restaurants, as opposed to the hundreds we see now. That shows how our offline economy and leisure habits have changed as much as those online. Sticking with leisure and recalling the film industry’s December hacking woes, think of the kind of technology we now see on screen. If you enjoyed any Pixar films over Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, recall that “Toy Story” was the first feature length computer animated film and was released in 1995. Moving on to communications, the world’s first smart phone, the IBM Simon, enjoyed its 20th anniversary last year—it went on sale in 1994. If we thought that one trend remained ahead of us, known as the internet of things and defined by Cisco internet business solutions groups as the moment in time when more things or objects are connected to the internet than are people, consider that the world passed that milestone in 2010. It stands to reason, therefore, that the 1990 law needs to be looked at: we ought to review it for the correct technical content; we ought to keep it under review for the appropriate freedoms, including today’s attitudes to data and ownership; and we ought to ensure it is future-proofed correctly. Today’s attitudes are not enough—tomorrow comes on pretty quickly—so we need to allow for frequent future updating in expectation of that fast change.

Computers make crime easier, faster and bigger—the same thing the internet has achieved in so many other areas of our lives—and that trend is going to continue. The president of the National Association of Data Protection Officers says:

“It’s the industrialisation of cyber-crime that’s the biggest challenge and in this area there are some menacing Mr Bigs who need to be faced down with greater risks to their personal liberty”.

Of course, a law that limits one person’s liberty limits another’s, and I do not underestimate the need to respect liberty. Sir Tim Berners-Lee argues that the worldwide web needs a Bill of Rights, which he says can only come about through communal decision, but that is a debate Parliament can have another day.

What should we look for today in the Bill? We ought to consider what prosecution can achieve. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), in her analysis of a different part of the Bill, rightly said that in many ways any prosecution was a failure, and it is true here, too, that to rely on law to enhance our security is in many ways to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. We all expect our personal interests and critical national infrastructure to be strongly prepared, well protected and resilient. I welcome an updated criminal offence, but prosecution is after the fact. At best, it might be a strong deterrent, but nobody should expect it to form the only line of defence; we should expect those responsible for our national security to do a better job in the first place, rather than resorting to catching and prosecuting somebody who has caused the sort of serious damage mentioned in the Bill.

Various experts and commentators say the Bill will play

“an important role in helping to reduce the rates of cyber-attacks and deter criminal activity in this space… However, attribution continues to be one of the major difficulties… Therefore companies should not become complacent around cyber-security”.

Furthermore, they

“should be focusing on prevention over prosecution”

and should also

“ensure they have the ability and the processes in place to be able to act quickly if a breach occurs.”

The same goes for any organisation with responsibilities in this realm. I note in passing that the UK Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure rightly explains that there are many other threats to our critical national infrastructure than merely cyber. We are right to focus on serious damage through cyber-attack, but it is not the only way someone could break a piece of CNI.

A technology and compliance lawyer adds a further warning:

“Internet crime is a global phenomenon and needs global co-operation. We need to be prepared to apply for extradition too to make them serve their sentence. This may be in part about that—to make sure foreign governments know we are serious to try and get greater co-operation across borders.”

I agree with that commentator on the importance of greater co-operation.

I want to make two small technical points. Section 17(6) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 says that a computer is something that contains a program or data. Does the Minister think this is still a sufficient definition? Perhaps she could come back to me on that after the debate. Further to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke raised, the Joint Committee on Human Rights took the view last October that the definition of “serious damage” may require revision, given that we are contemplating handing out life sentences. Will the Minister say a little more about that?

The UK needs to be able to make the national security and jurisdiction aspects in the Bill work. Does the Minister think the “linked to the UK” provisions are watertight? In particular, I have noted a discrepancy between what appears in lines 36 to 38 of page 36 and what is suggested in the explanatory notes. Explanatory notes are never to be taken on their own in themselves—they always say that very clearly—but is it possible for someone who is not a UK national who is affecting or intending to affect the UK, but not using a computer in the UK to do so, to walk away from this legislation? It seems to me that there is one small scenario left that may or may not be covered by the final paragraph (c) in clause 42(5).

Will the Minister clarify her views on whether the kind of attack on Sony before Christmas constitutes “serious damage” under this legislation, and perhaps, to be a little mischievous, on what she would do if she were in President Obama’s shoes, although that might be something for a later conversation? Will she describe what our own state is liable for under this legislation, considering that we have publicly promoted the existence of our own offensive cyber-capability? Finally, will the Minister confirm whether we are prepared to extradite to make these provisions work, and how she thinks this new law might have changed the situation of Gary McKinnon, for example, or someone in a similar position?

Let me turn to my third and final area of comment. I entirely support the Bill, and I raise just a few probing questions to deal with its various aspects. I have remarked that the tools we need to protect citizens from cybercrime are but one part of our broader cyber-security, and that the legislation is only one part of the fuller framework. I have mentioned what businesses and organisations need to do to protect themselves, but the final question is, of course, what the citizen should do to protect him or herself.

Get Safe Online—a good resource in this area—reminds us:

“There are a number of sensible and simple measures which you need to take in order to protect yourself against risks”,

and I refer hon. Members to that resource to do so. Taking these measures is important in one’s own home and also in the workplace. Indeed, no one who runs their own business should need a Member of Parliament to tell them how valuable is the online security of their own business, but what about people who work for someone else’s firm, and indeed the firms that make up the UK’s critical national infrastructure? Some argue that

“the biggest challenge at all levels in improving protection of the UK’s CNI is the security awareness of all the people who work”

for it. It is not only malice that can cause “serious damage”, but human error, incompetence and fatigue.

Let me provide some examples from the Transport Committee, on which I sit. First, in relation to malice, Edmund King, president of the Automobile Association, recently reminded us that modern cars can be connected to the internet 24 hours a day, and that he was concerned that hackers could control a car by attacking through its safety features. Secondly, we have heard in some detail on the Committee how and why the National Air Traffic Services system recently failed. We could argue that its evidence suggested that some failure is acceptable, as the argument has been put that when we have millions of lines of code, we cannot be expected to be sure of all of them. I read a recent paper that rather wonderfully talked about the attempts of

“either Murphy or Satan to interrupt the supply”.

You are looking very keen to interrupt me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall finish. I have argued that legislation and law enforcement are only part of the picture. It is also incredibly important that we as individuals think about the risks that we undertake. We should think about all this in the products we use now, and all those we might use tomorrow. Just because someone has designed something cool, it does not mean that we as consumers have to buy it unthinkingly. Entrepreneurs themselves have to engage in the ethics of their own tech. We all want to live in a Britain that is skilled, resilient and economically secure, but also open and free. We all want the Mr Bigs of this online world taken down, which is why I support the Bill and its updating of old legislation.

Modern Slavery Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Many compelling arguments have been made. I simply want to add a few brief comments.

It is absolutely clear to all concerned that slavery is one of the oldest and worst crimes. It is a most appalling thing to deprive another human being of their liberty. Slavery has not been eradicated as a crime—this is the very reason we are here discussing it once again under its modern guise—yet nor has it stayed still. It is a crime that has been able to evolve with technological changes, and as the countries of the world have come closer together. Other Members have made the argument well that there are both international and domestic elements to this abhorrent crime. In saying that the crime has evolved, I make no particular distinction between those elements at this point.

It is right that we update how we treat the crime and it is right that we do that in a considered way. The consolidation in part 1 of the Bill is helpful and will allow for a higher chance of successful prosecution. With that goes a more effective disruption of business that can flow from slavery. That is an extremely important and very practical thing. The consolidation also allows for clearer sentencing. I welcome the addition, as I understand it, of a potential life sentence for this crime. If we look down the list of other crimes that we treat as worthy of a life sentence—murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, manslaughter, rape, attempted rape, grievous bodily harm, armed robbery and firearms offences—all of them are concerned with the life and liberty of other human beings. It is right that we put slavery in the same category.

I also welcome the move in part 1 to make reparations and provide compensation to those who have suffered this appalling crime. That links to the very reason we might think of slavery as a serious crime: the life and liberty of other human beings. Reparations for “harm resulting”, as set out in clause 9(1), are perhaps merely an effort to put money where life and liberty are concerned, but it is the right thing to do inasmuch as we ever seek to do that in the legal code.

I am a Member from Norfolk. I grew up in west Norfolk and am well aware of cases of exploitation, abuse and trafficking of migrant workers in my county. The gangmaster Audrius Morkunas, a Lithuanian national operating in my county, was convicted earlier this year. Ten years ago, in Operation Absent, police officers from around the country including Norfolk constabulary collaborated to free, in the words of Norfolk constabulary, “modern day slaves.” This is a crime about which we in Norfolk know all too much and the same would be true of other rural areas. This afternoon, I was discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) the way in which this crime is prevalent in our neck of the woods. I draw that example to say that modern slavery is prevalent in the sense that we can all see it under the surface of modern life in Britain.

I want to make one important point about the local and regional economy that we want to see flourish in this country. As a teenager, I worked in fields and factories in west Norfolk, where I grew up. In fact I may be alone in this House—I do not know—in having worked for a legitimate gangmaster. You may not think this of me, Mr Speaker, as I stand here today, but it is none the less the case. I worked alongside—and got to know as friends—various foreign workers at that time, Bulgarians in particular. I make no suggestion whatever of abuse at that time but it was easy for me to see how abuse could occur and how it could be perpetrated, particularly upon migrant workers. Good law is essential to protect those workers certainly, but also to protect the breadth of the local economy. When we talk about modern slavery being prevalent, it also does no good at all to our economy in Britain for people to perceive certain sectors of the economy as being the place where slavery occurs. Good law protects the victims who may be subject to genuine crime, but also protects the reputations of sectors of industry, such as agriculture, in Britain where we want to see good practice and good commerce thriving. That is very important and is something we care about, particularly in Norfolk where we value our agricultural industry.

I raise that as an additional argument to go with those that are being made about supply chains. Yes, there are lengthy supply chains that we want to be able to understand, but there are also some sectors of industry in this country that we want to see do well and where we want to see good law protect workers and customers.

On a local basis, I want to pay tribute to a charity operating in my constituency called Freedom. Hon. Members may be aware of it, as it was the charity that played an honourable role in the recent freeing of three slaves in Lambeth. Freedom took a phone call from one of the women concerned who had been held for 30 years in a household in London. That charity does extremely good work and I am extremely proud that it operates from a centre in Hellesdon in Norfolk, as well as other operations around the country. I want the provisions in the Bill to assist that charity and others like it to continue doing the very good work that they do.

Many of my constituents—whether they knew that that charity was based in Hellesdon or not—care very deeply about this Bill and about what it can do. I have corresponded with them in recent months, as have many other hon. Members. I know that the Minister has faced a few calls for improvements today within the Bill and I look forward to her comments on it. I wish to ask about part 4 of the Bill. Like others, I want this part to work and to function very well. However, there could be scope for determined criminals to use clause 39(3) and other clauses as a get-out. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reassurance as to how she intends part 4 to be used to protect those who need it and not to allow it, in turn, to be abused.

I add my call to that of others for sensible co-ordination with other areas of law. It so happens that all these areas are close to the Minister’s responsibility, and I am sure that she will have in mind how best to co-ordinate the provisions of this Bill with those that regulate gangmasters and with newer rules that regulate forced marriages. The visa system is also relevant, and I am pleased to see in his place on the Front Bench the Minister for Security and Immigration. All those areas come together naturally with this sort of legislation.

I began by noting the importance of consolidation in this area, and I welcome the fact that this important Bill is also a concise one, providing a simple toolkit to begin what I hope will be Britain’s leading role in the world in this extremely important area of human progress.

Student Visas

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I say very clearly to the hon. Gentleman that the point of having a student visa is to study, not automatically to work. The problem is that, too often, people were abusing the student visa system simply to work, not to study, gain an education and make the contribution that he desires. There are postgraduate routes to remain here and study. We need a robust measure to ensure that our systems are not abused. It is the conflation of university education with an automatic right to work that lies behind the mistakes of the Labour Government and the abuses that we are dealing with.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I welcome the balance that my hon. Friend showed in his statement. The number of colleges whose licence is being suspended appears to me to be a small proportion of the overall total. Will the QAA examine all London sub-campuses of universities, such as that of UEA London, to see whether further action should be taken, or does my hon. Friend have specific ones in his sights?

[James Brokenshire]

We are speaking to the QAA, as I said in my statement. London campuses have been highlighted, so we have asked the QAA to look at the matter in broad terms to give reassurance. It is important that we do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I am pleased to say that we are taking strong action in that regard, in particular by promoting the alternatives to animal experiments to the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. We are leading the world in that regard.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

T8. At a time when Britain is showing strong leadership internationally against sexual violence, is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary aware of the work done domestically and locally by the Norfolk Says No campaign against domestic abuse, which completed a great week of work last week?

[Norman Baker]

I congratulate those who are involved in the Norfolk Says No campaign. We need more such examples of excellent local practice to ensure that our message reaches women in their daily lives, and police and crime commissioners have a role to play in the matter.