Cyber-Fraud in the UK

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this timely debate.

The scale of fraud and cyber-crime is remarkable, affecting more people more often than any other crime. It represents more than a third of all estimated crime, with 6.1 million incidents in England and Wales in the year ending September 2020. Eighty per cent of reported fraud is facilitated by the use of digital technology and the coronavirus pandemic means so many more of us are using online services to shop and invest and for leisure. As our habits change, so do those of criminals.

I believe that life on the internet should be as safe as our lives offline. If being exploited on the high street is unacceptable, the same must apply to vendors who operate online. I am proud that the City of London Police, based in my constituency, is the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for economic and cyber-crime and the national lead force for fraud. It works to investigate serious, complex and cross-border fraud, which is beyond the capability of a local police force, and provides training for such police forces and private sector workforces through its Economic Crime Academy. With the support of the City of London Corporation and stakeholders, including UK Finance, the City of London Police has consistently shown how it can harness and work with the private sector to tackle cyber-fraud, providing a bridge for law enforcement into financial institutions and, importantly now, into the FinTech sector.

I welcome the draft Online Safety Bill announced in the recent Queen’s Speech, which I hope will do much to tackle cyber-fraud. Indeed, the inclusion of fraud within the legislation will provide much needed encouragement for online service providers to take responsibility for protecting users of their services and implementing counter-fraud strategies to prevent malicious content. That is essential in a time when we have become even more dependent on making our digital defences robust and capable of dealing with the volume of fraud that we are now seeing. By the same token, if we are seeing cyber-fraud more often replacing traditional crime, we must allocate the relevant resources to reflect this new significance.

Equally, the City of London Police, which holds the unique role in this landscape, must be properly funded so it can continue upholding its national responsibilities. That said, online fraud need not be as sophisticated; online threats can and do spring from almost anywhere. Last year, the City of London Police alone requested suspension of 54,000 telephone, email, website and social media accounts. Facebook, Amazon, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and LinkedIn are the platforms that feature most frequently in fraud and cyber-crime reports, and I am sure all of us in this room use at least one of those platforms every day. The challenge is immense, and online service providers must take more responsibility to protect users of their services and implement counter-fraud strategies.

The suspicious email reporting service, developed in partnership with the National Cyber Security Centre, has received nearly 6 million reports in the past year, resulting in the removal of more than 43,000 scams and 86,000 URLs, including those linked to covid-19, investment and online shopping fraud. I have used the excellent service myself, forwarding suspicious emails to report@phishing. gov.uk, and texting 7726. We all have a part to play in ensuring that those fraudsters are closed down as soon as possible.

Clearly, updating the framework by which we enforce against cyber-fraud is a priority for this Government, and I welcome their conviction on that, but the solution is not one-dimensional. We all have a role to play in fraud prevention. We know not to leave our doors unlocked, our possessions visible in our cars or our telephones on a table when we are out eating. We know that to keep ourselves safe, we have to take a degree of personal responsibility. The same needs to be replicated online. People, no matter what their age, should be taught how to keep themselves safe online.

Although there is more that can be done and, critically, is being done centrally, greater priority must be placed on fraud at a local policing level. Too few of the cases disseminated to local forces for investigation by Action Fraud have actually reached a judicial outcome. Simply increasing capability, capacity and focus centrally will not address the substantial shortfall in local police forces to take cases forward. Now more than ever, there needs to be a drive to boost local police capacity and ensure consistency of approach. I am glad to see the Government respond with strength on this issue. It is my hope that strength does not wane, but is fortified to protect our citizens against aggressive and malicious abuses of technology.

Safe Streets for All

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

There is much to welcome in the Queen’s Speech that will make our streets safer, but in the short time that I have today—although I recognise that I have an extra minute—I want to strongly welcome the focus in the Gracious Speech on online safety. Life on the internet should mirror what is and what is not acceptable offline. Very few people would abuse someone standing in the street, so why do it online? The draft Online Safety Bill signals a step change for tech responsibility, bringing fairness and accountability to the online world. Placing children’s safety at the heart of this legislation is absolutely right.

In the UK, more than 10,000 offenders are caught every year involved in grooming and downloading indecent images of children. That 50 years ago we put a man on the moon, but in the third decade of the 21st century we cannot even prevent the uploading of toddlers and babies being abused is beyond me. It is shameful that it has to be this Government to bring forward legislation to protect children from online paedophiles. It is partly because the platforms themselves pay only lip service to protection.

If left unchecked, a hostile online environment can spill into concerning real-world actions. This has been made clear in the degree of antisemitism seen both online and offline in the past week. I was appalled by a briefing that I received from the London Jewish Forum, which provided evidence of antisemitism both in professional settings and on university campuses. The current conflict in the middle east has triggered new spikes of antisemitism both online and offline in this country.

As it currently stands in the draft Bill, only the largest and most popular platforms will be required to act on content that is harmful to adults. That risks the most harmful content just moving to less prolific sites. Parliament must protect the most vulnerable and ensure that the Bill compels all platforms, regardless of their reach, to remove harmful content and include robust digital policing.

I also hope that this Bill will give Ofcom the powers it needs to hold the platforms to account. I welcome the decision to include elements of economic crime within the scope of the Bill. I am proud that City of London police, based in my constituency, is the national lead for economic and cyber-crime. Sadly, fraud is the fastest growing area of crime in the UK, with City of London police currently receiving more than 800,000 reports a year. The inclusion of fraud in the Bill will provide much-needed encouragement, particularly for online retailers and auction sites, to take responsibility for protecting users and implementing counter-fraud strategies to prevent malicious content.

Our digital safety is just as important as our physical safety. I welcome the Bills outlined in this Queen’s Speech, which I think will make us all safer and—equally importantly—make us feel safer, whether we are online or walking in the street.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to reduce crime.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to reduce crime.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to reduce crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I commend him because, again, he is a tour de force locally, giving strong voice and representation to safer streets and safer communities and, again, backing the police. He is right to work with the police locally to make sure that more community support and safety measures come into place. I will support and work with him in whatever way I can. He will also know that when it comes to the funding for these schemes, the money is there from central Government. I urge all police and crime commissioners to step up and make absolutely sure that they tap into that funding to ensure that these measures come into place.

[Nickie Aiken]

May I associate myself with the remembrance today of PC Palmer and the other victims we lost on that day? I remember coming out of Westminster tube at exactly this time four years ago and seeing the aftermath of that dreadful terrorist attack.

I welcome the reopening of the call for evidence on violence against women and girls, which I believe now closes this Friday—26 March—and I encourage as many people to have their say as possible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we listen to victims of violence and all women and girls to really understand their experiences in their daily lives, so that we can ensure that the strategy that the Government finally introduce does tackle violence, harassment and abuse of women and girls?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I echo her call to continue to encourage people to respond to the survey. We have already had in excess of 135,000 people writing in to the survey since it has been reopened. But there is a fundamental point here: in having people join that consultation, that public survey, we want their views, because their views matter, but so do their personal experiences. I am talking about personal experiences and insights whether or not someone has been a victim, which is always a terrible, terrible thing, but also if someone has interacted with the system—it could be the criminal justice system, victim support services, the police or any aspect of the system. We want that to come together so that we can have the right type of approach that gives voice and strength to the type of policies and the legislation that we bring forward.

Grooming Gangs

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]]

I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for securing time in the Chamber to discuss the distressing but sadly prevalent issue of child sexual exploitation. I am grateful for the work that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, along with her ministerial team, has been doing in this policy area. I pay particular tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) for her outstanding and unwavering work to secure justice for all victims of abuse.

I understand that law enforcement capacity and capability is being strengthened and investment made to increase our ability to stop child sexual abuse. I am grateful that the Government have published a national strategy to protect children from all forms of child sexual abuse and published a paper on the characteristics of group-based child sexual exploitation.

Child exploitation is complex and convoluted. I am concerned that there is currently no provision in legislation to recognise the power imbalance between a child and an adult who targets a child for abuse and exploitation, up until the point that a child is either a victim of sexual abuse or involved in a crime. The lack of recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a child prevents successful prosecutions for sexual offences, as well as for modern slavery offences. Although the abuse happens on a persistent and continual basis, prosecutions often focus on separate counts of offences, requiring a child to remember the details of them all rather than the abuse as a whole. In sexual abuse cases, teenagers aged 16 and 17 need to prove that sexual activity was not consensual.

The definition of child sexual exploitation is aligned with the earlier definition of child prostitution in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and does not reflect the fact that children may be exploited due to the imbalance of power between a child and an adult. Available tools such as sexual risk orders, and modern slavery and trafficking risk orders require criminal-level evidence of proof. They also involve lengthy processes before they are even put in place, which can result in a child remaining in an exploitative situation or the situation escalating to abuse before action can even be taken. Children aged 16 and 17 are not being covered by the provisions of child abduction warning notices or for the purposes of online grooming offences. In the light of these concerns, The Children’s Society is proposing the introduction of a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviours in relation to a child for exploitation purposes. I hope Ministers will consider The Children’s Society’s recommendations.

The sexual exploitation of a child is abhorrent and a serious crime. Working together, we can strengthen the law to hold perpetrators to account and provide their victims with the justice they deserve.

Gang-associated Girls

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in my first ever Westminster Hall debate under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), my neighbour. A river splits us, but I know we are at one on this subject. I am pleased to speak in this debate because the subject has always been close to my heart.

Westminster, which I represent as part of the Cities of London and Westminster seat, has never really been considered a borough where there could be gang violence. In 2012, I became Westminster City Council’s cabinet member for community protection; up to that point, I had been the children’s services cabinet member. When the two posts were put together, we were able to understand, for the first time, the gang issue that Westminster was experiencing. We had gone from 19th in the Met’s serious youth violence table to third, and we were higher than Hackney. That focused my mind, because, as I said, Westminster is not a place that is associated with serious youth violence and gang activity.

I remember going to see the then deputy mayor for policing—he is now my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—and saying, “What do I do? How do I tackle this?” His advice was to tackle it straight away, to be firm and to put all our powers and services behind it, because it would only get worse. We did, and I established the first gangs unit in Westminster. We went and spoke to Hackney, because it had a brilliant gangs unit. We set one up, and it allowed us to understand the issues facing our young people.

The problem was drug-related, and there were pockets of it in Pimlico, in the south of my constituency, as well as in the Westminster North constituency. In Pimlico, it was more of a business, with young people using violence to secure their clients and their areas. It culminated in the horrific murder of a young man called Hani, who was hacked to death in Pimlico on a Sunday afternoon when people and families were going about their business. The boys who were eventually found guilty—and sentenced, rightly, to many years in prison—were from my own ward in Pimlico, which is considered a very safe and affluent part of Westminster. Citizens, local people, councillors and MPs have to recognise that this is going on all around us. We in this Chamber may live in very safe environments, but our young people walk very different streets.

I welcome this debate on girls in gangs. As part of my preparation, I spoke to the head of the gangs unit at Westminster, Matt Watson, about girls. His view—it is one that I share, given my experience—is that girls in gangs, or girls who are victims of gangs, are hidden. What the hon. Member for Vauxhall said about the data is absolutely right. If there is one thing that we want the police to do, it is this: when they stop groups of boys or young men and there are girls present, take the girls’ details. The girls are usually ignored.

From my experience with the Met, it absolutely wants to work with local authorities and charities that are involved in work on gangs. If we can ask the Met to introduce best practice in taking data from young girls, that will help. The sooner we know about the involvement of young women and girls in gangs—whether as perpetrators or victims—the better. They are often used as weapons or to send a message to members of an opposing gang. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, we often do not know about them until they are at the most traumatic time of their lives in hospital.

I would like us to consider some other issues as a country. I am sure the Home Office has already considered this, because there is some funding for it, but I think there should be more funding and encouragement for relationship programmes. It is not fair to keep burdening schools, which are often seen as the place for such things because we know—or hope—that children go to them every day, but there needs to be a lot more education about what healthy relationships are for girls as well as boys. I have two teenagers, a 14-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl, and I know it is equally important to teach them what a healthy relationship is.

In 2020, we cannot get away from the fact that boys, in particular, will access horrendous porn images on the internet from a very young age. Their first experience in a sexual relationship is often based on what they have seen on the internet. We need to build up more substantial programmes on healthy relationships, and we need to help parents. I have had too many experiences with victims’ families where the mum and dad never expected their child—their son, who is now dead—to be involved in a gang.

We all know that our teenagers live secret lives, and we did the same as teenagers. We often did not want our parents to know what we were involved in. That is part of growing up, but I think parents, grandparents, carers and young people need to understand what a healthy relationship is and have signposting when they know that something is not right. I am convinced that young women realise in the bottom of their stomach when something is not right, but they do not know where to go for help.

I also reiterate what the hon. Member for Vauxhall said about exploitation and abuse, which is very much gender related. I worry about the music industry. I do not want to be seen as a middle-aged woman telling young people that they should not be listening to drill music—that is not my position—but we need to explain to young people how we should view women and relationships and how men should see themselves. The music industry, and elements of it within drill and rap in particular, has questions to answer on what it allows to be published. I have been appalled by the misogyny and utter glorification of violence in some of the videos I have been shown, and it makes an awful lot of money on the back of that. We must take that on and hold the industry to account. I do not believe in censorship; this is about standards, and these are our young people.

I welcome the debate, which is on a cross-party concern. We need to take the politics out of it. Our young people, no matter what age they are, but particularly those aged under 18, whether boy or girl, must be considered victims if they are mixed up in a gang. No child of 15 should be peddling drugs. There will be a reason why they are doing so, and the story behind it is usually not a good one. I would love to see the Home Office take the great work it has already done to the next level.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

This Bill, as it stood at Second Reading, was a remarkable piece of legislation, but having gone through Committee, I believe it has been improved further. After Third Reading, when it comes, it will be legislation that the whole House can be very proud of.

The Bill sits on a long and impressive list of legislation that successive Conservative Governments have introduced over the past 30 years—the Children Act 1989; the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which created the offence of harassment; the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which created the offence of stalking; and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) took through the House, which created the offences regarding slavery, servitude and human trafficking and made provision for the protection of victims.

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and I served on the Bill Committee together. I completely agree with everything she has said, but does she agree that bringing forward the Bill during the coronavirus pandemic and pushing it forward throughout lockdown is further evidence of the Government’s support for victims?

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Also on the list is the Serious Crime Act 2015, which created the offence of coercive control. In 2017, the Conservative Government doubled the maximum sentence for stalking and a couple of years later passed the Stalking Protection Act 2019, creating stalking protection orders. That leads us to today and the Bill, which I dearly hope we will see become law shortly. That is an impressive history from Conservative Governments, taking strong, decisive and meaningful action to protect those who are unable to protect themselves and giving a voice to the most vulnerable. It is also important to note the notable gap in such laws between 1997 and 2010.

I was honoured to sit on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, my first as a Member of Parliament. It is important to say that on Second Reading and in Committee I highlighted the need to amend the definition of domestic abuse to include children within households where such abuse is present, and to recognise children of the victims of abuse, not just as witnesses. It is estimated that up to 30% of children live in a household where abuse is taking place. Until now, children were seen as the hidden victims of domestic abuse who were never directly affected, but we know that that is not true. Every day, children’s services teams up and down the country, and children’s charities such as Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society, see the devastating effects that witnessing such abuse can have on a child’s development, educational attainment and long-term mental health. I saw this myself as children’s services lead at Westminster.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I am slightly confused about what the hon. Member seeks to improve with new clause 43. I am happy to be corrected, but I understand that local authorities, as the hon. Member said, already have the ability to prioritise domestic abuse cases for rehousing. I believe that, on Second Reading a couple of weeks ago, the Minister quoted the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who said that he was making this a priority. The statutory guidance also states that local authorities should find a local connection, and that it is okay if it is in another district or local authority, so long as there is no threat to the family or the woman. I am just trying to understand what the new clause would do that is not already in the statutory guidance or the Bill.

[Jess Phillips]

I am more than happy to answer that. I am quite fond of the particular bit of statutory guidance she refers to, because it did not actually exist until a woman who lived in the refuge where I worked took a case against Sandwell Borough Council regarding her local connections. Currently, the statutory guidance is explicit about refuge accommodation. This woman was living in a refuge, many years ago now, and Sandwell Borough Council said she did not have the local need that meant it had to pay her—what we call—housing benefit-plus, so it contested her application on the basis of local need. With the help of the Child Poverty Action Group, that was challenged in the courts in two cases specifically around refuge accommodation. All the new clause really seeks to do is extend that beyond being only about refuge to being about other forms of temporary accommodation.

Councils imposing local connection restrictions on their refuge funding contracts—exactly what I was just talking about—such as capping the number of non-local women able to access the refuge or requiring a specific proportion of the women in a refuge to be from the local authority area, has been one fall-out of that particular incident, because a refuge just cannot be run like that. We cannot know who will turn up. By and large, refuges will have people in who are from the local area, but it is not like a school, where someone has to live within a certain radius and has their needs assessed based on other things. People deal with the situation as it arises.

Homelessness teams are refusing to support women escaping abuse because they are not from the local area. Nearly a fifth of women supported by Women’s Aid’s No Woman Turned Away project in 2016 and 2017 were prevented from making a valid homelessness application on the grounds of domestic abuse—outside of refuge; just rocking up to the homelessness services—for reasons including that they had no local connection and that local housing teams were deprioritising survivors who did not have a local connection within their housing allocation policy.

As Members may know, the Government already require local authorities to make exemptions for certain groups from these local connection requirements or residency tests, including members of the armed forces and for those seeking to move for work. Nobody would argue with that. We just wish to add domestic abuse victims to that roster. Therefore, to tackle continuing inconsistent and unacceptable practices, a statutory bar on local authorities imposing local connection restrictions on refuges or any temporary or permanent accommodation should be included in the Bill, and needs to sit alongside the proposed statutory duty on local authorities to fund support in refuges and other forms of safe accommodation. The Government are essentially going to be paying for some of this from central funds. We look forward with bated breath to that big cheque, Minister; we should have a big-cheque moment.

[Nickie Aiken]

I want to get to the bottom of this. Is the hon. Lady saying that there is a lack or a vacuum in the Bill or in statutory guidance full stop, or are local authorities not complying or doing what they should under existing legislation or statutory guidance? If they are not doing what they should be doing—if Sandwell, which is a Labour council, or Ealing, which is a Labour-led council are not doing what they should be doing—surely it is possible to go to the ombudsman? Surely there is a way to hold local authorities to account if they are not carrying out their statutory duty?

[Jess Phillips]

No, they absolutely are carrying out their statutory duty, but the statutory duty is only about refuge—unlike the statutory guidance regarding servicemen and women, which is that they are allowed to move without local connection, recognising that base life does not necessarily mean that they are based in a place, so they might not have a local connection, as well as tipping the hat to people who deserve a break when they are presenting to homelessness services. It is essentially the same thing—recognition that people living in certain circumstances might need extra help. I am sure the hon. Lady does not wish to be political about this, but I could list lots of Tory councils that turn away victims of domestic abuse, and many that have no current provision for refuge, but send their victims to a neighbouring local authority; that is not uncommon. The way some councils choose to fund this is to fund it elsewhere, which I think is problematic and will certainly be furthered by the new statutory duty.

The Government will pay for this statutory duty, which may lead to people having to present to homelessness teams in different areas when they do not have a connection to the local area. That is the problem I am trying to overcome. Together, the new clauses will help to ensure that all women and children fleeing domestic abuse can access safe housing where and when they need to. I urge colleagues to support new clauses 43 and 44 to bar local authorities from imposing dangerous local connections restrictions on survivors of domestic abuse.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Ninth sitting)

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful speech and for setting out the case for the amendment.

We know that domestic abuse in teenage relationships has the potential to shape adult lives. We know that it can be severe and can have many consequences outside the two people in the relationship. We are clear that the impact of domestic abuse on young people, including those in abusive relationships, exists and that we need to ensure that agencies are aware of it and of how to identify and respond to it.

The Bill’s definition states that behaviour is domestic abuse if parties are aged 16 or over. I note that that was supported by the Joint Committee and, indeed, by the evidence we heard from Lucy Hadley of Women’s Aid and Andrea Simon of the End Violence against Women Coalition at the evidence session of this Bill Committee. We are of the view that having a minimum age of 16 years does not deny that younger children are not impacted or affected by domestic abuse, including in their own relationships.

I have no doubt that the amendment is well intentioned. However, having established that minimum age as the threshold in the definition of domestic abuse, it follows that any statutory guidance issued under clause 66 of the Bill, which relies on the definition in clause 1, cannot and should not as a matter of law, address abuse between people who are aged under 16.

That is not to say that the guidance issued under clause 66, which addresses abuse between older teenagers, cannot have wider application. There are other sources of guidance for younger age groups. We intend to publish a draft of the guidance ahead of Report and, in preparing that draft, we have worked with the children’s sector, among others, to include the impacts of abuse in older teenage relationships within the guidance. Clearly, we will continue to work with the children’s sector to ensure that the guidance is as effective, thorough and accessible as it can be before it is formally issued ahead of the provisions in clauses 1 and 2 coming into force.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

As the Minister knows, I have concerns about this—I spoke to her when in listening mode. At the evidence session two weeks ago, for me the powerful evidence was from the Local Government Association spokesperson, the leader of Blackpool Council, whom I questioned specifically. He said that he felt that under-16s were dealt with under the Children Act. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are other ways of dealing with the matter?

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contributions, her canvassing of views sympathetic to the situations faced by teenagers under 16, and her work on that. She is right to point out the evidence of Councillor Simon Blackburn. He is an experienced councillor and also, in a previous life, was an experienced social worker. He contributes on behalf of the Local Government Association in all sorts of forums on which he and I sit—not just on domestic abuse, but on other areas of vulnerability.

I appreciate that it sounds rather lawyerly to focus on the age range, but we are careful not to tamper inadvertently, albeit with good intentions, with the strong safeguarding mechanisms in the Children Act. That is why we are not able to accept the amendment to the guidance, given that the guidance is based on the definition in clauses 1 and 2. However, other forms of information are available and as of September relationships education will be introduced for all primary pupils, and relationships and sex education will be introduced for all secondary school pupils. That education, particularly for primary schools, will cover the characteristics of healthy relationships, and will help children to model the behaviours with knowledge and understanding, and cover what healthy relationships look like. Of course, as children grow up and mature, the education will grow and develop alongside them, to help them as they are setting out on those new relationships.

In addition, the important inter-agency safeguarding and welfare document produced by the Department for Education called “Working together to safeguard children” sets out what professionals and organisations need to do to safeguard children, including those who may be vulnerable to abuse or exploitation from outside their families. It sets out various scenarios, including whether wider environmental factors are present in a child’s life and are a threat to their safety and/or welfare.

Finally, of course, the courts and other agencies should also take into account relevant youth justice guidelines when responding to cases of teenage relationship abuse, avoiding the unnecessary criminalisation of young people, and helping to identify appropriate interventions to address behaviours that might constitute or lead to abuse. As I have said, I appreciate the intentions underlying the amendment, but I return to the point that the age limit was on careful reflection set at 16 in the definition, and so the statutory guidance must flow from that.

Public Order

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about police officers and policing, and for the support he has given to our injured officers. What we have seen over recent weeks has been completely appalling.

There are a number of points I would like to make in response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. It is important to recognise—I said it, in fact, this time last week—that peaceful protest remains an essential and vital part of our democratic society. Of course black lives matter. The movement itself and the response in terms of the points that they have been making, as we discussed last week on the Floor of the House, are absolutely important and essential. It is vital that we look at the ways in which we can address the issues of inequality and social justice across our country and society. That is why the Prime Minister has announced a new cross-Government commission to effectively champion the voice of black and minority ethnic groups in particular. The new commission on race and ethnic disparities will absolutely look at some of the issues the hon. Gentleman touched on. If I may, I will come on to the issue of Windrush separately.

These inequalities are live inequalities, which means, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we must act now. The aim of the commission, importantly, is to set out something that is forward looking and positive: a positive agenda of change that balances the needs of individuals, communities and society, but maximises opportunities and ensures fairness for all. That is, of course, something that all Members in this House should rightly welcome and work on collectively. Again, I said that last week and I will keep on saying it. We should unite in our core purpose and objective. We are all leaders and we can absolutely drive this agenda forward. It will build on the work of the race disparity unit and go further in terms of understanding why disparities exist and what does not work. It will build on recommendations that have already been made to the Government.

That brings me on to the point the right hon. Gentleman made about Windrush and the Wendy Williams review. I have been clear to the House, and I will say it again on the Floor of the House this afternoon, that I shall be returning to this Chamber to provide a full update on its recommendations and on the way in which the Home Office itself is undergoing much work in terms of a change of culture. It is looking at itself and at the conduct that has taken place, historically, in the Home Office. Those are vital and important issues that have to be addressed, and they have not been addressed previously.

We will be looking at how we implement the Williams review. Work is taking place right now specifically on compensation and increasing that compensation. The hon. Gentleman will understand that every single case is a bespoke case that has to be looked at on an individual basis. These are complicated cases. They cannot just be solved and resolved overnight with payments. We have a team of people working assiduously to look at every single case. If the hon. Gentleman would like an update on the work that has taken place on the compensation scheme, the outreach work and the programmes that have been undertaken and are still forthcoming with our online stakeholder teams, I would be very happy to update him on that work.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]]

For the past two weekends, parts of my constituency have experienced some appalling acts of criminal damage, including smashed windows, offensive graffiti and, even worse, violence towards frontline police officers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should recognise the outstanding service those brave officers have given to ensure the safety of both peaceful protestors and local residents, whose lives are frequently disrupted by such protests? Will she commit to bringing to justice the hooligans responsible, and reassure all those on the frontline that they have the Government’s complete support?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank her for her question, as the Member of Parliament for the constituency that was affected by the shocking scenes already touched on in my statement and in opening remarks. There are a number of points to make. The police have been absolutely incredible, and I pay tribute to the Metropolitan police—all the officers and their operational command over the weekend. I was in constant contact with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner throughout the weekend, and I have seen many of the teams myself and was in touch with the commissioner again this morning. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to all the officers who served to keep her constituents safe at the weekend, and also to man the protests and arrest the individuals perpetrating violence and crime. In answer to her final point about ensuring that the perpetrators of the violence, the thuggery and the hooliganism face justice, we will absolutely support the police in all their efforts to bring forward the investigations, using police bodycam and CCTV footage, and make sure those individuals face justice.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Fifth sitting)

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Kyle]

I appreciate that. In our debates yesterday, during an exhaustive set of speeches about the independence of the role of the commissioner, the case was made that it is extremely important that the link between independence and effectiveness is categoric. That has been exhaustively investigated by two previous inquiries by the Home Affairs Committee and by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The direct link between effectiveness in that role and where it reports—its independence—comes from a central role of the commissioner: to give voice to people who have, for too long, been shut out of public debate. Victims and survivors of domestic abuse are some of the most disempowered people in our society.

The reason that independence is important is that there will be times when the commissioner needs to give voice to people who are suffering abuse but comes into conflict with current Home Office policy. That area is never more acute than on the issues of migrant women, legal aid and the experience of women at the hands of law enforcement agencies. Overwhelmingly, there will be a constructive relationship between the Home Office, the Home Secretary and the commissioner—there is already a good and fruitful working relationship between the Home Office and the commissioner designate—but there will be times when we need the commissioner to be an unflinching advocate for survivors and victims and to be 100% focused on the needs of those individuals, and not even 1% focused on the delicacies of managing a complex set of relationships within the Home Office.

There are also technical reasons why that is seen as more effective. As we heard in evidence, reporting to the Home Office is a complex relationship. The Home Office is a complex organisation with numerous officials and various levels that can have direct relationships with the commissioner. The commissioner will have a handful of staff, while the Home Office will have thousands, and although those thousands will not all report directly, dozens will—that is a very high-maintenance reporting line.

We will not push the amendment to a vote, but I urge the Minister to assure us that she will use her influence at the Home Office to ensure that the reporting line is effective and efficient and that the commissioner is not overwhelmed with different people asking for different things. As we all know, the civil service rightly needs to protect taxpayers’ money, and people’s liberty and safety, so it can sometimes overwhelm small organisations with bureaucracy. We want to ensure that the commissioner has all the freedom to act in a way that fully represents the victims and survivors for whom she is there to give voice.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I understand the concerns that you raise about effectiveness and independence. We have a Children’s Commissioner and a Victims’ Commissioner, and they are both very independent. What makes you think—

[The Chair]

Order. It is not supposed to be “you”, because I am “you”—you are supposed to speak through me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

Yes, Mr Bone.

What does the hon. Gentleman think? Why would this commissioner be any different in independence and effectiveness compared with the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner or any other commissioner that the Government may have?