Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Speaker—long may you reign.

It is a privilege to speak in favour of the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). I pay huge tribute to her, as she has been the flag-bearer for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the whole time I have been in this House—four and a half years. One of the first conversations we ever had was about how important it is, particularly for a new Member of Parliament, to be part of the CPA. I took her at her word, and I have been delighted to be involved in that brilliant association.

[Sara Britcliffe]

Can we also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for the work she did with new parliamentarians when we came into the House? She specifically promoted women in this Parliament in order to reach 50:50 status. This is about not just the work she has done for the CPA, but what she has done for women in this place.

[Nickie Aiken]

Absolutely. I will not spare my right hon. Friend’s blushes: she is not only a brilliant parliamentarian, but she supports newer Members of Parliament, and I have been the beneficiary of her advice.

I have been the supporter of the incredible work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for many years, and this Bill will cement in law the difference it has made across our beloved Commonwealth over the past 76 years. I also welcome the Bill as it recognises the work the ICRC does to support regions in crisis. From Australia to Anguilla, from Botswana to the British Virgin Islands, the CPA is crucial in keeping all parliamentarians connected across the globe, sharing good practice, helping us to learn from each other and fostering friendly, positive and long-lasting friendships across the 180 Parliaments and legislatures that make up the Commonwealth family.

[Dame Maria Miller]

As my hon. Friend was making her remarks about how we learn from other Parliaments, I recalled sitting in the New Zealand Parliament for questions one morning, where the Speaker took an interesting role. If the Speaker was not satisfied with an answer the Minister gave, he asked for the question to be answered again. Does she think we should considering doing that here as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure those on the Front Bench would be delighted to comment on it in their speeches.

The ICRC is an essential partner for achieving the three core objectives of the UK’s humanitarian framework, which are:

“Prioritise humanitarian assistance to people in greatest need and provide them with what they need the most to recover from crises; Protect the people most at risk, including from conflict-related sexual violence and barriers to humanitarian assistance; Prevent and anticipate future shocks and build resilience in long-running crises by tackling the underlying drivers of crises, instability, and extreme food insecurity”.

Nobody could ever argue with any of that.

The ICRC is much respected, not only in this country, but abroad. It carries with it an unparalleled ability to engage with all parties engaged in a conflict and it supports innocent civilians caught up in the crossfire. The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend in Committee are crucial to the successful operation of the ICRC. Amendments 1 and 2 are designed to protect information that the ICRC provides in confidence to the Government from being used in UK civil court proceedings. ICRC information being used in legal proceedings is a real risk and concern. I was surprised to learn that in the past 15 years the ICRC’s confidentiality has been challenged some 20 times in the UK, be it in respect of disclosing information regarding its work with British forces abroad or of its dialogue with a variety of actors on the global stage.

Today, I will be focusing my comments on the CPA, as I have been fortunate to work closely with it during my time in this place.

[Dame Maria Miller]

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the ICRC, let me take the opportunity again to highlight the importance of the amendments introduced in Committee. She reiterated the number of times the ICRC has been threatened with having to divulge very confidential information. Does she, like me, hope that that is taken into consideration when the Bill goes to the other place? Obviously, providing that confidentiality and the need not to divulge such information except in criminal cases is an important step. Does she agree that we need to make sure those provisions are in place for civil cases as soon as possible? I hope that no debate in the Lords will delay their coming into effect.

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention; she makes a serious point. If organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross are to succeed in their objectives, they have to be trusted in the regions and countries they serve. They have to deal with people who we may not wish to deal with ourselves to bring an end to conflicts, or even to safeguard civilians’ lives and prevent sexual violence in conflict. I hope the other place, which tends to be clear when scrutinising Bills, will see her point and will accept those amendments and not change the Bill.

As I said, I would like to move on and concentrate my remarks on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association because of the work that I have been delighted to undertake with that brilliant organisation. As a one-term MP—I can confirm that I will be a one-term MP, because I am standing down at the next election—and as the MP for Cities of London and Westminster at this point, I have been proud to support the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In fact, only this week I was honoured to speak to a delegation from the Malaysian Parliament, including His Excellency Johari Abdul, Speaker of the House of Representatives, as well as members of the House of Representatives’ special Select Committees and several parliamentary officials. It was fascinating as usual to learn how similar our parliamentary procedures are, such as timetabling, where our model very much mirrors theirs. That is barring the Malaysian Parliament’s provision in the procedures—you may be interested to learn this, Mr Speaker—for the Head of State to make a statement every morning. It could be interesting to introduce that practice here in the Commons. I am not sure whether His Majesty would like to come every day to make a speech. I personally—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Also, His Majesty is not allowed into the House of Commons.

[Nickie Aiken]

I had forgotten that small point. Maybe we should just move on.

The Malaysian version of the Procedure Committee— I am proud to sit on the UK’s Procedure Committee—is called the standing orders committee. I was asked to speak to the Malaysian delegation about the procedures of the House of Commons—how business is tabled, the Standing Orders and my experience on the Procedure Committee. What a week to be discussing the procedures of Parliament. It was fortunate that I was able to use a certain Act, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which we saw this week with its extended ping-pong, to demonstrate how the UK Parliament works in practice.

[Sara Britcliffe]

Does my hon. Friend recognise not only that the work she does on the Procedure Committee helps shape this Parliament, but the importance of people visiting Parliament and seeing the procedures? When we talk about the life of an MP when we go to local schools, they always ask us, “What’s a typical day in Parliament?” It is so difficult to explain that, because there is no typical day in Parliament. Some days we can finish at 5 o’clock; some days we can be sat here at midnight. The work we do to teach others about the way this Parliament works and about our job on a day-to-day basis is so important.

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it was fascinating this week for the Malaysian delegation to sit in on Deputy Prime Minister’s questions. It was quite a raucous episode this week, particularly given the first question. I did not see the delegation afterwards, but I would have been interested to hear their views on our procedures for DPMQs.

In 2022, I was delighted to address delegates from the Isle of Man when I represented CPA UK. I was able to discuss my experiences of managing parliamentary responsibilities, including Committee work, attendance in the Chamber, constituency work and personal commitments. That goes back to the point my hon. Friend just made: there is never a typical day in the life of an MP. I can come into this place with my meetings for the day in my diary, and then all of a sudden there is an urgent question or a statement that I want to be part of and then my diary is completely changed. It is a fascinating job to do, and I am sure it is the same everywhere—from the conversations I have had with parliamentarians across the globe, parliamentary procedures are never one-size-fits-all.

I personally find meeting those delegations, whether in this country or abroad, very enlightening. I encourage all Members of the House to work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to meet, learn from and share insights with other parliamentarians from across the Commonwealth, although there will be many MPs who will not be coming back to this place because of retirement or whatever.

[Chris Elmore]

On the point about Members’ engagement, the hon. Lady will know that I am privileged to be the treasurer of the CPA branch—the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) is the chair—and we spend a lot of time trying to encourage both longer-serving and newer Members not to be afraid of the CPA, but to come and take part in inward delegations and, ideally, engage in our work abroad. My hope is that this Bill and this debate on the Floor of the House highlights again the successful work of the CPA that the hon. Lady is cantering through, which hopefully means that Members now and Members after a general election will be encouraged to work with it. Does she agree?

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is very important that any candidate who is seeking to become a parliamentarian and is successful, whenever a general election may be, does get involved in the CPA once they arrive here. It is an enlightening experience and it helps us as parliamentarians to be learning from others, not just in the United Kingdom, but across the globe.

[Sara Britcliffe]

It does feel as though my hon. Friend and I have been here for a lifetime, but when we entered as new parliamentarians, one of the fears over engaging with the likes of the CPA was the public’s reflection on the travel and so on. It is vital that we highlight in this Chamber how important it is for parliamentarians to be able to witness how Parliaments work in other parts of the world. Does she agree that it is important that, through these debates, we continue to highlight the importance of the CPA, so that Members do not avoid engaging with the likes of the CPA through fear?

[Nickie Aiken]

I completely agree. Although this is the mother of all Parliaments—it has been here for a thousand years or more—we really should be able to learn from others.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My other hon. Friend, the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), is right to point out the need for us to explain the benefit of the CPA, because much of our day-to-day work as Members is connected to the grassroots of what we do in our constituencies, but the role of a parliamentarian is so much greater than that. I will give an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) was talking about her meetings with the Malaysian Parliament earlier this week. I had the great pleasure of meeting the hon. Rodiyah binti Sapiee, who is a Member of the Malaysian Parliament and is a new regional representative for the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians network. We have not touched upon that organisation much in this debate so far, but it is there to support elected Members, very much in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn spoke about—supporting new Members to do their jobs as well as they can, and hopefully retaining them work in Parliament for longer. The Malaysian Parliament has 28 female Members, just 13.5% of their parliamentarians, and we discussed ways to increase the number of women parliamentarians. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can learn from each other about these questions in our Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth because we have such similar set-ups?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am being very generous in allowing the scope to be broadened somewhat. I now look forward to hearing more from Nickie Aiken.

[Nickie Aiken]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with my right hon. Friend about women supporting women. We do a great job of supporting women in this Parliament and I am delighted to be part of her cross-party women in parliament group. We have to have strength in numbers and we have to encourage more women to stand, whether in CPA countries or our own, because we have to hear women’s voices in politics.

[Jack Brereton]

Does my hon. Friend agree this is not just about encouraging women but—I consider myself to be a relatively young person—it is also about including more young people into parliamentary democracies across the Commonwealth?

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I believe the CPA can be a force for good in sharing good practice for encouraging people from all walks of life to enter politics. I am about to go on to talk about my experience with the CPA in Grenada, where there were many young people who had been elected for the first time. It strengthens all democracies if they represent the people they are there to serve.

[Sara Britcliffe]

As I am the youngest on our Benches —I am not 30 yet, thankfully—may I ask my hon. Friend to explain how Grenada managed to get young people into its Parliament and also how they can feel they can stay in the job? One of the problems young people, and all Members of Parliament, face is the rise in abuse on social media, which can strongly put people off entering this place. People enter this place to do good things for their constituents, and that is not always reflected through our media and social media. How are other Parliaments across the Commonwealth tackling that?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This debate is about the movement and transfer of the CPA. I have got to be a little bit careful because other people may want to stretch the scope of other Bills when we do not want them stretched. This is an important subject and the House is very supportive, but we must ensure that we stick within the terms of the Bill.

[Nickie Aiken]

I just reiterate that I support the points my hon. Friend has just made, because it is important that we make sure that the CPA is a force for good.

In the Cities of London and Westminster, the Commonwealth is right at home. We are fortunate to host the international headquarters of the Commonwealth secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation in Marlborough House, and of course the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the United Kingdom operates from here in the mother of all Parliaments.

[Dame Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to bring up the importance of the international secretariat being here right in the heart of Westminster, and that has enabled us to work with it as CPA UK and as the UK Parliament. Around International Women’s Day, for example, we worked with it to deal with online abuse, which has just been raised. We set up—as we can now with the advent of the widespread use of Teams and other facilities for online meetings—online training for women parliamentarians across the Commonwealth. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just one example of how we can work as a team with the CPA, and how having it so close to us here in Parliament helps us effectively support its work in this way?

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely agree. That goes to the heart of the Bill—the status of the CPA and whether we can consolidate it. We are just across the road from the Foreign Office, and this is about working together for the soft power element that the Government are focused on.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association works, as many here will know, to promote parliamentary democracy and good governance. It is completely non-partisan. I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting and getting to know parliamentarians from a wide range of countries and political parties. Back in March last year, I was fortunate enough to be invited to be a member of the CPA UK delegation to the stunning island of Grenada in the Caribbean, where I was honoured to meet Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell. That was my first trip for the CPA, and what a fascinating one it was. I pay tribute to the CPA officer, Martin Vickery, who was outstanding on the trip, and I know that the Clerk at the Table, who was also there, will always remember it. It was my first experience of the CPA in action.

Grenada had had the same Government and Prime Minister for 22 of the previous 27 years, but Dickon Mitchell defeated the incumbent, Keith Mitchell, who was seeking his sixth term, in the 2022 elections. I wonder whether a Prime Minister had ever before succeeded another with the same surname. The incumbent New National party had had all 15 seats in the Grenadian Parliament, but after the 2022 election, it was suddenly in opposition, as Dickon Mitchell’s National Democratic Congress took nine of the available seats. The election brought about certain new challenges for the Parliament of Grenada, for the National Democratic Congress, which had no experience in government, and for the New National party, which had not been in opposition for decades.

That goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) about having new and young parliamentarians. None of the MPs elected for the National Democratic Congress had ever been elected or even been in politics before —the Prime Minister, Dickon Mitchell, had been a solicitor—so it was fascinating for the CPA UK to be invited over to undertake a series of workshops on how to be scrutinised, and, equally importantly, on how to scrutinise.

I was joined on the trip by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who was then a member of the Scottish National party at the time but has since defected to the Conservative party—although I would not take any credit for persuading her on the trip that she was a Conservative. In Grenada, I also worked very closely with Leo Cato, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Grenada, and with Dessima Williams, the President of the Senate of Grenada.

Dessima Williams is a former communist who was very much part of the revolution in Grenada in the early ’80s. We—two women politicians from completely different sides of the political divide—bonded so incredibly well, and that underlines how important it is that the Bill secures the CPA’s status. Ms Williams said to me as I left, “Only the CPA could bring a communist and a conservative together.” I think that is a clear example of how parliamentarians, no matter their political persuasions, can put their political parties aside and work together for the greater good. That is the extraordinary power that the CPA provides.

During my trip, I also met women’s rights campaigners, people working to improve disability rights and services and, very importantly, the Youth Parliament and climate change campaigners. This goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said earlier. We met the Youth Parliament, and they were outstanding young people who want to make a difference for their country. As a women’s rights campaigner, I found it fascinating to talk to other campaigners who are working very hard to tackle violence against women and girls. Our trip coincided with International Women’s Day, and I was privileged to be invited to make a speech at the Prime Minister’s event to over 100 Grenadian schoolgirls—although, I did not expect it to be aired live on Grenadian TV, which was an experience.

I was then delighted to welcome Speaker Cato and the President of the Senate, Dr Williams, to my constituency only a few weeks ago during the 75th anniversary of the Commonwealth of Nations celebrations, which were presided over by Mr Speaker. My brilliant constituency team thoroughly enjoyed discussing with them the day-to-day work of an MP’s office, and heard how this differed from their experiences in some way but also mirrored them in others. We were also joined by Chantelle de Jonge, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, in Canada. That is a clear example of how the CPA brings parliamentarians from across different countries together.

[Dame Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is talking eloquently and with a great deal of passion about her visit to Grenada. Her visit was just one of a number of different delegations that the CPA UK sends out, thanks to the financial support of this place and the other place, to ensure that Members of Parliament can carry out the work and relationship development she mentions. Does she agree that it is very important that Parliament continues to reiterate its support for CPA UK, given the good store that Members of Parliament set by it? They feel very strongly about the work of the CPA; it is a real priority for parliamentarians. The CPA must therefore continue to be a financial priority for Parliament.

[Nickie Aiken]

I completely agree, which is why I am fully supportive of the objectives of the Bill.

I also agreed with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) when she said in Committee that

“this Bill creates equal partners in the Commonwealth, rather than the more outdated model where the UK takes the leadership”.––[Official Report, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2024; c. 6.]

The Bill provides the necessary delegated legislation-making powers for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross to be treated in a manner comparable to an international organisation of which the UK is a member. Due to the powers under the International Development Act 2002 and the International Organisations Act 1968, which is even older than I am, the Government have not been able to treat the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the International Committee of the Red Cross as international organisations to which they are party, because neither organisation is an intergovernmental organisation. Instead, both have their own unique constitutional arrangements, reflecting their specific international priorities.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to establish special powers to enable the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross to operate in the United Kingdom. It is welcome that the Bill is supported by parties from across the House. It will provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with more protections for its work. The Bill will ensure that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association can continue to strengthen democracy and encourage cross-party work. I look forward to supporting the Bill through its stages and once again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke on her outstanding work to get us where we are today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Before I start my speech, may I take a moment to pay tribute and respect to Lord Peter Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who sadly passed away this weekend? Members may know that he was the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for 25 years from 1977 to 2001, and in that time he was a Cabinet Minister in the Thatcher and Major Governments, Northern Ireland Secretary and National Heritage Secretary. I send my condolences to his widow Lindsay and the family.

It is a privilege to speak on Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. Victims should and must have confidence in the criminal justice system, from making an allegation to the police investigation, court case, conviction and all the way through to the parole stage. After all, we know that a victim’s experience of the criminal justice system does not stop after the perpetrator has been found guilty. I praise the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for listening to victims, survivors and their families and bringing forward this legislation, which enshrines victims’ rights in law.

Rightly, part 1 of the Bill seeks to improve positive outcomes and provide that much needed support for victims at every level. As it stands, it does that by enshrining the key principles underpinning the victims code in law, simplifying support during and after the criminal justice system process, strengthening the Victims’ Commissioner’s role and introducing a joint statutory duty on PCCs, integrated care boards and local authorities to work together when commissioning support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violence.

Those things are all welcome, but I gently ask the Minister to consider what survivors such as the broadcaster Charlie Webster and the London’s victims’ commissioner Claire Waxman are highlighting, specifically their campaign to give teeth to the victims code and ensure that there are proper resources in place for survivors and those supporting them. The Minister will remember from when he and I sat in Westminster City Council’s cabinet—he in charge of adult social services; me in charge of children’s social services—that Governments are very good at providing local authorities with statutory duties, but it is important that funding comes with that. The Victims and Prisoners Bill will strengthen the defined rights to drive the cultural change needed to improve the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system.

I have read the letter that Charlie has written to the Secretary of State, which highlights the death of her very close friend Katie, the victim of sexual abuse. I pay tribute to the work that Charlie has done in this arena. Charlie is a constituent of mine, and I first met her when we were both volunteering during the covid pandemic. She told me about her experience as a victim of domestic abuse and sexual abuse, and I was proud to sit on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee and see through an amendment for which she had lobbied—those who know Charlie will know she is very good at lobbying—to ensure that children were included as victims of domestic abuse.

Charlie’s letter and Claire Waxman’s campaign show that this is evidence-led legislation responding to the lived experience of victims. It gives legally enforceable rights to justice and support. With their personal understanding, they know the needs and requirements to improve the system. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, will the Minister or the Secretary of State meet me and Charlie to hear more about her experience and her campaign, which makes some astute recommendations regarding long-term funding for victim support services?

I turn briefly to part 2 of the Bill. Expanding provisions for support to those affected by major incidents is welcome. Many colleagues in the Chamber today have highlighted the horrendous experiences of the Hillsborough victims and families. My constituency, the Cities of London and Westminster, has sadly through the years seen its own share of major incidents from the 7/7 bombings, the 2017 Westminster bridge terrorist attack to, most recently, the 2021 Fishmongers’ Hall attack. London has hundreds of victims, survivors and their families who have often felt left on the sidelines of support. We had the public inquiry for the Manchester Arena bombings recently, and I found the testimony from many victims and surviving family members moving, and I pay tribute to their bravery. I hope that the Bill reflects on that powerful testimony.

I have a great deal of sympathy with creating an independent and appropriately resourced advocate for victims of major incidents, because when a victim dies, the crime does not die with them. Often if the victim has been killed, it is their surviving family who continue with the lifelong consequences of the perpetrator’s actions. It is incredibly important that when we consider victims, we consider the families, too. The same principle applies when we consider parole.

Part 3 of the Bill includes proposals to provide the Justice Secretary with powers regarding granting release to certain individuals who fall into the top tier of serious cases. I note in particular the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for Carrie Johnson in her campaign to prevent the killer of Joanna Simpson from being allowed his automatic release from prison after serving only half his sentence. When looking to improve the Parole Board process, one group that must not be ignored is the victim’s surviving family. I have been struck in researching this Bill by just how many families, like Joanna’s mother, Diana Parkes, and her children—have been neglected during the Parole Board process. They should have more of a say, so I welcome the Bill’s introduction of the right for families to apply to attend a parole hearing.

I am very aware that this is a complex issue and one that will benefit from debate, but I believe we need to nuance this. After all, no one crime is the same and no one victim’s experience is the same, so making sure there is a sympathetic approach, with appropriate powers in place for the Justice Secretary and the Parole Board so that they can deliver for all those affected by a top-tier crime, will be critical to the success of this Bill. That said, I certainly welcome the Bill as a whole and, of course, the measures that will go a significant way to change a victim’s experience.

Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Home Detention Curfew) Order 2023

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 General Committees

[Damian Hinds]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend and I do want to give her that reassurance—that we are extending the list of people who will be presumed ineligible for this programme to include those 11 new offences. Actually, it is part of a broader scheme and some changes that we brought in last year, which I will come to in a moment. It goes beyond, necessarily, that which a person was imprisoned for; often, we need to consider wider intelligence as well.

Assessment of risks to those at the curfew address is key and will remain so, but it is also absolutely right that risks to the public more generally are taken into account. We will therefore be mandating that public protection as a whole is considered in the risk assessment for someone being considered for home detention curfew, and that all necessary information sharing takes place before a decision on HDC release is made. This builds on changes that I alluded to in response to my right hon. Friend’s question—changes that we introduced last year. Since April 2022, it has been mandatory for the community offender manager to request information from the police and children’s services about domestic abuse or child safeguarding risks associated with the offender or the proposed address, to help to inform the assessment of HDC suitability. Home detention curfew must not be authorised until that information has been obtained and assessed. But we are clear that we must go further, and that is why we are making these changes today.

At the same time, the purpose of the draft instrument is to extend the maximum period of the existing home detention curfew scheme by 45 days. That extends the benefits of the scheme for eligible, suitable offenders, helping to support their rehabilitation in the community with a view to reducing reoffending. That will mean that some people will spend longer on HDC, but no change is being made to the minimum period that someone must have served in custody before being released on HDC.

Although fewer people will be released, the number who are on HDC at any one time will grow because of the longer period to be spent under curfew. There are currently around 1,850 offenders on HDC. The combined effect of these planned changes will be to increase that number by around 300, which means that the prison population at any one time will be lower by around 300.

Our changes pull in both directions on prison population because, while we think it right to exclude those convicted of stalking, harassment and other offences, we also think it right to extend the HDC period for the limited cohort of offenders assessed as suitable for the scheme. When I refer to the “limited cohort”, it is worth bearing in mind that, of the total cohort who could, on the face of it, be eligible for such a scheme, some two thirds do not go on it.

The change will provide a longer transition from custody to community for a smaller cohort of eligible, risk-assessed offenders, allowing them to work towards rehabilitation in the community while remaining subject to strict conditions. The electronically monitored curfew is a significant restriction on their liberty. If the curfew or any other conditions of their licence, such as the requirement to report to probation, are breached, they can be recalled to prison.

Electronic monitoring is also an opportunity for offenders to break habits that have led them into offending previously, improve chances for employment and training, and help to maintain positive relationships. We have enhanced our use of electronic monitoring across the board, which is supported by ever-improving technology and the broader use of GPS tagging, which allows us to monitor offenders when they are away from the curfew address where necessary and not just whether they are at home during curfew hours.

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

Will the Minister give us a reassurance that the new GPS monitors—the tags—will make it safer to have prisoners at home under curfew, compared with the current situation, and that that will allow victims to feel reassured that, when perpetrators are released under the new system, they will be properly monitored?

[Damian Hinds]

There are different layers to that extra reassurance about safety. Risk assessment is one part of that and the exclusion of more offenders is another, but the technology itself is an important part of the picture. All tagging technology improves over time, and we also get “learning by doing” effects from its wider deployment.

As well as RF or radio frequency tagging, which is a binary thing that basically detects whether the individual is where they are supposed to be or not—“Are you in your curfew address or not?”—these days there is also the option, where that is deemed appropriate and suitable, of GPS tagging, which can track where an individual actually goes. There are multiple benefits to that—for example, in monitoring exclusion zones or, if somebody is supposed to be going to work on a daily basis, ensuring that that is in fact what they are doing. We also now have alcohol tagging, to detect whether people have complied with an alcohol order.

Home detention curfew is an effective approach for the management of lower-risk offenders, and it allows for their safe and controlled reintegration from prison into the community. I look forward to today’s debate, and I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Powers of Attorney Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to speak on this Bill, brought forward and championed so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who spoke very cogently on the subject.

I am incredibly glad that this Bill has had full support from the Government during its passage through Parliament. After all, it is a wholly sensible Bill and will bring lasting powers of attorney into the 21st century. In fact, it builds on some sensible recommendations that the Office of the Public Guardian and the Ministry of Justice identified in their recent work on modernising LPAs.

I recently heard from a constituent of mine, Tim, who works as a volunteer for the Paperweight Trust, a charity that provides free services to those needing guidance on legal, financial and welfare issues. Tim is an expert on this subject, so I was interested to hear his observation that the Office of the Public Guardian is taking much longer to process LPAs. Based on his experience, he told me that, for many people, the complexity and accessibility are a constant worry when it comes to this kind of documentation.

Therefore, I want to make some observations. First, how will this Bill seek to address the problems that Tim has highlighted, and will it make a difference? The Bill will deliver two important changes to legislation around powers of attorney and add to the work in the report led by the Ministry of Justice. It will reform the process of making and registering a lasting power of attorney to make it safer, easier, and more sustainable. It will bolster safeguards and explicitly permit a third party to object to the registration of a lasting power of attorney, a very important protection. Moreover, it will modernise the process of filling in a lasting power of attorney, a move that—in my view—is very long overdue.

Secondly, it will widen the group of people who can provide certified copies of powers of attorney to include chartered legal executives. From my point of view, that is most welcome, and works to correct a historic omission: it will mean that chartered legal executives can certify alongside solicitors, which I hope will mean that we can speed up the process, because there will be more professionals involved in it. I say to my hon. Friend who is taking the Bill through Parliament, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, that these reforms are most welcome. Of course, digitalisation offers the opportunity to create a more efficient service for creating powers of attorney; however, that process needs to put protecting older and vulnerable individuals at its heart. To that end, I emphasise the need for any digital system to place a premium on accessibility. I hope that we will hear from the Minister on that point.

[James Wild]

So far in this debate, we have all talked about how we are going to be moving to a far more digital system. Unfortunately, the record of the public sector—and in fairness, equally, the private sector—in delivering IT systems has not always been as stellar as we might want. Having been on the Public Accounts Committee for two years, I can certainly attest to that being the case. Does my hon. Friend join me in looking forward to the Minister explaining in his comments where we are in the process of developing this digital system, which, according to the explanatory notes, will only cost £3 million? That is a relatively small figure, so I hope that it is all on track, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is very important?

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those issues regarding the digitalisation of the whole process. We all know that Governments, no matter their political persuasion, do not always have the greatest record in improving digitalisation of this kind, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that point. As we all know, he is an able Minister, so I am sure that he is already ahead of the game and knows exactly what he is doing to improve the speed of that digitalisation while keeping it within budget.

The premium on accessibility will be absolutely key for people who are not too familiar with the internet; given that 25% of over-65s do not use the internet, that is a point that we have to make, though as we get older, we are more used to using the internet. A woman who is in her 50s, like I am, is very used to using the internet now. [Hon. Members: “Never!”] I thank my hon. Friends for their kind comments. Likewise, any approach to a multi-channel system needs to work just as efficiently as the digital option.

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend is making a valuable contribution, as she always does. Does she share my concerns that if people who are not necessarily technology-advanced are seeking support in getting their applications through, there need to be relevant safeguards in place to ensure that those people are not being manipulated, as they would not necessarily have been if the system was purely a paper one?

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend makes a key point. The Ministry of Justice might want to look at what public-sector organisations, such as libraries and local authorities, can do to help support people—possibly older or more vulnerable people—who are not au fait with using the internet. That may be something for the Minister to consider eventually as this process continues.

However, I welcome the Bill and what it sets out to achieve. It is tough, and often heartbreaking, when loved ones lose the ability to make their own decisions as a result of mental incapacity. As such, a lasting power of attorney is one of the most important legal documents a person will make, so we need to get the legislation right. I will take this opportunity to provide my own experience with lasting power of attorney. I am the lasting power of attorney for my father and mother. I did that six years ago when my father was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and it became obvious that he would not have the mental capacity to make decisions for himself as the condition progressed. At a point when he still had the capacity, we organised lasting powers of attorney on health and on the financial side. It is important to make the point that lasting power of attorney is so important in both areas—the financial side and health.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

I am very interested to hear my hon. Friend’s experience with this process. Does she agree with me that, having been through the process, it is needlessly complicated?

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We went through our family solicitor, who is somebody that we trust and who knew the family. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the process can be long, and, when not using a solicitor, it can be quite unnerving for some people. It is such a massive and important document. From my own experience, when it came to the end of my father’s life, and there had to be major decisions made on whether to continue his treatment, the fact that I had the final say ensured that the family knew that we were making the decision for my father in his best interests. It was not left to medical professionals. I would absolutely trust a doctor or a medical professional to make that decision, but having the health power of attorney meant that I made the decision on his behalf.

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend continues to amaze me with the quality of her speech and the points she makes. Does she agree with me that the fact we are discussing what some families may regard as a taboo subject, in this great Chamber, will hopefully give families up and down the country the confidence to start those conversations? As a result, if and when they need power of attorney, those difficult decisions and discussions will have happened well in advance.

[Nickie Aiken]

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say to people in this House, and across the country, “Have the conversation now.” Having looked at the Bill and written my speech, I am going to have the conversation with my husband. We never know what is around the corner. I want to ensure that, if anything happened to me, my husband has the lasting power of attorney so that he can make the decisions both financially and for the benefit of my health—and vice versa.

That is what I learnt through the process with my father. When he sadly died last May, because I had the lasting power of attorney for the financial side I could help my mother with all the finances, which made it an easier transition. She had never had to do any financial planning or management in the household; it was always down to my dad. I could work with the insurance companies, the banks and the pension providers. It was a fairly seamless transition. One of the positives from the pandemic is that many pension providers and insurance companies will now accept the death certificate via email, so people do not have to keep posting so many copies of the death certificate. I hope the digitisation of the lasting power of attorney will have similar success in making the transition easier when people have to provide information to whoever they are dealing with on behalf of their loved one.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

I am struck by my hon. Friend’s speech and her reference to her father—I am very sorry about that situation. We had a similar experience with my mother-in-law; my wife and her siblings had lasting power of attorney, which was all the more important as she lived for many years with Alzheimer’s. A key point is that the speed with which lasting power of attorney is granted is incredibly important, because a person’s condition can sometimes deteriorate very quickly. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill is vital in considering ways in which we can speed up the process, which is the key point of digitisation?

[Nickie Aiken]

I agree 100%. We know the progress of conditions such as Alzheimer’s and dementia can be slow or rapid, so it is important that we make the process as quick as possible to give the person at the heart of the decision making the reassurance that their family will do everything in their best interest. It also gives the family the reassurance that they have the power to make sure their loved one is as comfortable as possible in their last years.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend is being generous in taking interventions. Conversations about lasting power of attorney are very important, but does she agrees it is also important that more people talk about writing a will so that their financial affairs are in good order? It is on my to-do list every year, and I will do it very soon, but I have not got around to it. I encourage others to do as I say and not as I do.

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely agree. We never know what fate has in store for us, and I urge my hon. Friend to put writing his will and arranging a lasting power of attorney at the top of his list, and I promise that I will do the same. I urge everyone in this country to discuss with those closest to them whether they should arrange a lasting power of attorney for each other.

[Chris Clarkson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that everyone should have these conversations, but not everyone can follow up on them because of the expense of, for example, getting legal advice to arrange a will or power of attorney. She says she was fortunate to be able to use a solicitor, but that will be too expensive for some people. Does she agree that the measures in the Bill will make it much easier for people to access lasting power of attorney without incurring the extra expense and difficulty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

Again, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. One of the reasons I support the Bill is that I think it will do that. It will give the reassurance we all need as human beings about what will happen at the end of life, or if things go wrong and we end up in hospital without the capacity to make a decision on ongoing treatment. These days, everything in our lives is done digitally, whether it is banking or insurance, and this Bill will enable our partner, a family member or a close associate to get into our bank account, if we are incapacitated for whatever reason, to look after our financial affairs so that our family’s lives can go on.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting my Bill and being so eloquent in her explanation of some of its effects. She had just moved on to the digital aspect. One of the Bill’s effects is to create a digital record of lasting powers of attorney—a digital truth—that will be accessible for those wanting to check LPAs. Those are powerful documents, but there may come a point when someone wishes to take back that power, as the donor, from one of their attorneys and give it to someone else. At the moment, that record would exist in paper form. In future, there will be a digital version, which will be bang up to date. That is an important safeguard.

[Nickie Aiken]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is responsible for the Bill. Everything we do with it has to improve the situation for those at the heart of the LPA and those who are caring for them. Of course, life changes and someone may be incapacitated from a health point of view but then recover, as we would hope. They could then take back that power. It is so important to have the flexibility and protection in future, so I absolutely agree with the point he makes.

I will now conclude, as I think I have been speaking for long enough. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I could speak for so much longer on this subject, but I know that other Members wish to support the Bill. I believe it does get things right, I support it and I hope to see it become law shortly.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and to support this Bill, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who spoke with great vigour in advocating for it and with great experience and authority. I have to declare an interest, because in the merry-go-round of ministerial changes during the year I was briefly a Justice Minister and I conferred with him at the beginning of his journey on this Bill. I am not surprised, but I am delighted, to see the fantastic way in which he has brought it forward. I was also particularly impressed by the way in which he made reference in his speech to all the other people who had spoken during the earlier stages of the Bill. That showed a degree of respect, care and attention to detail in relation to our fellow Members. All of us who participate in the proceedings on these Bills, be it in a Bill Committee or on a sitting Friday, appreciate the sort of respect he has shown to people in bringing forward their ideas alongside his own.

To go back to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and to my earlier intervention, at the heart of this lies an incredibly difficult period in people’s lives. We are talking about processes, digitisation and paper alternatives, but at the heart of this is a time of great vulnerability for people: not only the person for whom the LPA is being sought, but their family and carers. My mother-in-law, like my hon. Friend’s father, suffered from Alzheimer’s. It is a difficult and confusing time; you do not quite know what to do. It is difficult to decide when to seek an LPA. It almost feels disrespectful to suggest that that person is not in control of their life.

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does he agree that, rather than waiting for someone to get into that situation, perhaps when they are in their 70s or 80s, it is perhaps time that we now—in our 30s, 40s or 50s— think ahead and put together an LPA now, to take away any embarrassment and upset?

[Simon Baynes]

That is an extremely important point, to which I think my hon. Friend referred in her speech. I remember the difficulty we had in reaching the point at which my mother-in-law was actually diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. She had to go and have an MRI scan, which she was very scared of doing, and we felt that we were placing an impossible imposition on her by making her go and have the scan, but by then we knew there was something that really needed to be addressed. So there is not only the difficulty of making the decision to seek lasting power of attorney but what leads up to that, which may be the diagnosis of an illness, particularly a dementia-related illness. So I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about the importance of planning ahead.

Although many do not like to think or talk about it, some people will find themselves in circumstances in which they are no longer able to make their own decisions owing to a loss of mental capacity, and obviously the lasting power of attorney exists for that purpose. It was introduced in the Mental Capacity Act 2007 with the aim of making improvements in the previous system of enduring power of attorney, and it constitutes a legal agreement governed by the law on deeds and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The 2005 Act is designed to protect and empower people who may lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions about their care, treatment and financial affairs, and LPAs have an important role within that framework. This is something that I think we all understand, and indeed have discussed already this morning.

As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock and many others who have spoken, the case for change is clear. The existing protections within the LPA system are losing their effectiveness as technology improves and society’s attitudes change. There have been a number of references today to the levels of digital technology use by older people. I do not dispute those statistics, but on the basis of my experience I think there may be more people than we realise at the older end of the age spectrum—silver surfers like me—who use computers and digital technology and consider them to be an important part of their lives, and I think that people are becoming more accustomed to obtaining Government services efficiently online.

When I was a parliamentary candidate about 10 years ago, there was a great deal of debate about benefits being paid directly into people’s bank accounts, which it was thought would cause difficulties for many people. There was a twin-track approach in that instance, like the one that my hon. Friend is suggesting now, with both a digital and a paper track, but what we found then was that in fairly short order people became used to having benefits paid directly into their accounts without their having to go to the post office or the bank to collect them in cash.

The covid-19 pandemic has of course accelerated this expectation, and has caused many people who were previously unfamiliar with digital technology to embrace new ways of interacting with organisations and public services. A point that may not have been made strongly enough today is that the last two or three years have changed the way in which many of us—particularly older people—find information and assistance.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendments 73 and 80.

Like many of my hon. Friends, I marched and protested in opposition to the Iraq war. They were some of the largest and most important protests that we have ever seen. Anyone who attended or saw them would agree they were big, they were noisy and, by their very nature, they caused some disruption. None the less, it was absolutely right that the people were allowed to protest against one of the biggest injustices of our time, even if it was in direct opposition to the policy of the Government. Let us be clear: if protests of this kind, or protests such as those against the poll tax, were to take place today under the measures in the Bill, there would be a real fear that they could be stopped by this Government.

As has been reiterated time and again in this Chamber, the right to peaceful protest, however disruptive it may be to Ministers and Members of Parliament, is one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy. Yet the restrictions that the Government want to impose in the Bill would allow the police to render protests inert, amounting to what is an effective ban. Of course, we have yet to be given any clarity about why the Government are giving themselves such draconian powers, especially when the Government and the police already have ample powers to prevent protests that threaten public order and to take action against those protests they deem disruptive.

It could not be clearer that the powers that the Government want to hand themselves are an extreme overreach, which should leave us all worried about their ability to stifle popular protests against their policies. The reality is that these measures are nothing more than a petty vengeance against protesters by Ministers who are too thin-skinned to accept any criticism. Frankly, they are measures that put the protection of ministerial egos and business interests before the protection of human rights, as part of an intentional journey towards the creation of a Big Brother state that stifles protest and dissent.

Let there be no doubt: this is an extraordinary ideological attack on our civil liberties, with draconian laws, from the undermining of our trade unions to the taking away of our British citizenship without notice, all passed by this Government to curb our freedoms and restrict our rights. That is why this Government must be challenged on every occasion to stop the further erosion of our civil liberties.

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

In the time given, I wish to speak on Government amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments 189 and 146. Of course, I am speaking about the amendment to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, which brings us a massive step closer to ending rough sleeping and would drastically change how we view and help those on the streets.

For almost 200 years, the criminalisation of the homeless has shamed our country, but at long last the Vagrancy Act’s days are numbered. I thank the Minister for his constructive discussions with me, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for being beside me, both when he was on the Front Bench and now on the Back Benches, fighting for the repeal of the Vagrancy Act.

I know there has been some concern in our discussions about the Vagrancy Act’s disappearing and our inability to deal with aggressive begging. I want to make the point that there are powers in place today in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which are now used by the police in the majority of cases against aggressive begging. It should be no surprise, therefore, that arrests and prosecutions under the Vagrancy Act have plummeted since 2014. From the conversations I have had with the Met and the City of London Police, I believe alternative powers to deal with aggressive begging are already available.

I am a pragmatist, so I accept the Government’s position of seeking a thorough and comprehensive review, but I ask the Minister to ensure that that is done quickly and concisely; up to 18 months is a very long time, so I ask him to please bring it forward. I hope that during the review he and the Home Secretary might consider revising the specific guidance on aggressive begging under the 2014 Act. I would welcome his response on that.

Finally, in my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster we have the largest number of rough sleepers in the United Kingdom. I hope that the repeal of the Vagrancy Act will send a clear message to those sleeping on the street, tonight and every night that we will help and support them to turn their lives around and we will no longer criminalise them.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I am really proud to represent Sheffield Hallam for so many reasons, but one that is particularly relevant to today’s debate is the city’s long and proud tradition of protest. In the 1800s, Sheffield’s Chartists took part in mass demonstrations, holding nightly meetings in Sheffield’s Paradise Square to protest against the then royal ban on open-air meetings. Sheffield played a pivotal role in the struggle for women’s suffrage, and our city’s suffragettes took to the streets time and again to fight for the right to vote. My point is that protests have formed the world around us. They are the reason that I stand here today. They have made our world a better place. Protest is often the start of change. Yes, it is often loud and often messy, because people have been ignored for too long and we need to listen.

Without protests, our country would be unrecognisable. Women would not have won the vote. There would be no NHS. Parliament would be less democratic. The right to protest is a person’s right to shape the world around them—to stand up for what they believe is right and to oppose what they believe is wrong. It is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. As such, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a flagrant attack on the core principles of that democracy. When this Bill was first proposed, we rightly saw people come together and spread out into the streets because what was being proposed was utterly draconian. I am proud to have worked with the Bishop of Sheffield and many others to talk about how this will impact on Sheffield’s history but also our future.

Having heard what has happened in the other place, I am glad that several amendments have been proposed that would mitigate the worst impacts of the Bill—particularly amendment 73 removing the ability of the police to impose noise-based restrictions on public processions, amendment 80 on giving police the power to impose greater conditions on static demonstrations, and amendment 87 removing their ability to impose conditions on one-person protests. The idea that one person cannot protest or should not be allowed to express themselves is completely at odds with what our democracy should stand for.

We live in a climate and ecological emergency where the future is not only for our country but for the whole planet, and it will be determined by the actions that are taken over the next few years. It is absolutely right that people should be able to hold us to account by raising their voices on our inaction. We have seen a brilliant wave of young people standing up for our environment—for a liveable planet for future generations. We should hold on to those thoughts as we protect protest.

IOPC Report on Metropolitan Police Officers' Conduct: Charing Cross Police Station

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Words cannot really cover how I felt when I read the IOPC report; that anybody could think that using such language is acceptable, let alone police officers—and police officers based in my constituency, in a police station just up the road. I will be meeting the borough commander for Westminster tomorrow to discuss the report and how he and his colleagues plan to bring its recommendations to pass. I also welcome the review by Dame Louise Casey; I have worked with her for many years and I know she will leave no stone unturned when it comes to looking at the culture of the Metropolitan Police.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that although it is clear there are rogue police officers in the Metropolitan Police and other police services, there are thousands and thousands of dedicated and hardworking police officers up and down the country who are equally disgusted? Will he join me in thanking them for their service?

[Kit Malthouse]

I share my hon. Friend’s disgust at these events. As a former Westminster councillor and the London Assembly member for the area that includes Charing Cross police station, and having visited the police station to see its work in policing one of the most diverse, sensitive and difficult parts of the country and the capital, I find it shocking to see such evidence. I agree that that disgust and fury will be shared by the thousands of police officers across the United Kingdom who do extraordinary things every day to keep us safe. It will be shared not least, given the nature of the messages, by the ever increasing numbers of female and black and minority ethnic officers—the numbers in UK policing are now at an all-time high in both categories—who are doing their best to help us all in changing the face of British policing.

Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the third time.

First, I declare my interest as a former non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and a magistrate member of the Sentencing Council. Approved premises are an unsung part of a largely unsung service, but just as part of the successful functioning of our society and democracy is a criminal justice system that is fair and fit for purpose, approved premises are a critical element of the continuum between custody and community for a significant number of those who have broken the law.

There are approximately 100 approved premises across England and Wales, with some 2,300 bed spaces between them. Primarily, they provide temporary accommodation for offenders who have been released from prison but are still deemed to pose a high risk, or those who have the most complex needs and so need to receive additional, targeted residential supervision and rehabilitative support.

I make no apology for repeating the point I have made at previous stages of the passage of this Bill: it is rehabilitation that is key. Whatever the views of individual Members or different parties across the House about the causes of crime or harshness of sentencing, we all want to see fewer victims of crime, yet despite the best efforts of skilled, dedicated, committed and caring prison officers and probation staff, to whom I pay tribute, reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. In fact, as hon. and right hon. Members may be aware, around 80% of crime that receives a caution or conviction is committed by a repeat offender.

We know that drugs play a massive role in offending, whether that is committing crimes while the offender is under the influence of drugs or committing crimes to feed the habit. Indeed, Dame Carol Black’s review of drugs estimated that the total cost of harms related to illicit drug use in England was more than £19 billion in 2017-18. Drug-related crime was the main driver of the total costs, with recorded offences committed in England by drug users amounting to £9.3 billion in that period. Action to reduce drug use is an important part of helping people who are newly released from prison and at acute risk of succumbing to the temptation of a return to substance misuse.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his private Member’s Bill. In the Mayor of London’s suggested new policy, he is looking to allow young people who are caught with drugs in Greenwich, Bexley and Lewisham not to face any offence or be brought to justice and to be let off the hook. Does my hon. Friend agree that really small amounts of drugs can lead to greater issues for young people in the long term and may even lead them to go into crime? Surely it is about teaching young people from the very start that drugs are not the answer to anything.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Like other hon. Members, I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) for his efforts to enhance the capability of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to detect illegal drug use. The Bill will be an important tool to enable HMPPS to understand the prevalence and nature of substance abuse in approved premises.

I am particularly encouraged by the Bill’s holistic approach to tackling drugs misuse. It will work well with a number of the Government’s key priorities; it chimes with the beating crime plan, complements the prisons strategy White Paper and adds to the focus on transparency in the new drugs strategy. One thing that struck me on reading the Bill was that its provisions are very much targeted towards help and guidance for those in approved premises, rather than towards prosecution. I think we all agree that if somebody has a drugs problem, it is better to help than prosecute them.

I accept that the Mayor of London is trying to do his best about drug use among young people, particularly in Bexley, Lewisham and Greenwich, by not prosecuting under-25s caught in possession of a small amount of drugs. However, I think that that policy will give a very clear steer to the gangs peddling drugs that they can persuade young people that a small amount of cannabis will be okay and that they will get away with it. I do not think that that is the right message to send our young people.

I particularly praise the Bill for giving agencies the ability to understand and respond to new and emerging patterns in drug use in approved premises, ultimately aiming to reduce it and support reductions in reoffending. I also welcome the fact that it will support the development of effective practice in tackling substance misuse, supporting recovery and building a body of evidence on drug misuse among the offender cohort. My concern, however, is that people living in approved premises are not typical offenders; they often have complex problems. Keeping that in mind, our approach to drugs and dependency in approved premises must always be underpinned by assessment and empathy.

Overall, consistency of testing and treatment from prison to the community can and will be vital in ensuring that approved premises, which we are expanding on, are safe and drug-free, and that the risk of serious harm is reduced for the individual, for other residents and for the wider public. I am therefore delighted to support my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) for bringing forward this extremely important Bill. I want to start by thanking those who work in the criminal justice system in approved premises, prisons and the probation service. They do an incredibly challenging job and deserve our thanks.

As we have heard today, residents who are supervised in approved premises are not typical offenders. Often, they are high-risk individuals with additional problems and troubled pasts. They mainly house people released from prison with strict licence conditions in place. Approved premises play an incredibly important role in the rehabilitation of those who are there. Ensuring they are housed in safe and secure drug-free premises that support their rehabilitation and prevent reoffending is crucial not just for those who are placed there, but for the public at large, so everything must be done to protect residents from the supply of drugs, which in some cases has led to them offending in the first place.

I am deeply concerned, like other Members across the House, that drug deaths in approved premises have risen in recent years, and that the abuse of prescription drugs and new psychoactive substances is increasing. Psychoactive substances in particular are constantly evolving and becoming harder to detect and combat, and the hon. Member highlighted the profound effect such drugs can have on those who take them.

[Nickie Aiken]

I am interested to know the hon. Lady’s views on the Mayor of London’s proposals to allow under-25s not to be prosecuted. Perhaps it is the decriminalisation of drugs that he is suggesting for Lewisham, Bexley and Greenwich.

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am not surprised by it, particularly as I am a Member of Parliament representing Lewisham. I do not agree with the premise that it is the decriminalisation of drugs in our borough. Let us look at what the Mayor of London is doing: an extra 1,300 police officers and £70 million for opportunities for disadvantaged young people. The reoffending rate for people using the London Women’s Diversion Service, which the Mayor of London funds, is just 7% versus the national average of, I think, 23.3%. It is really important to look at what works, but it certainly is not the decriminalisation of drugs that the hon. Lady refers to.

Under the Offender Management Act 2007, residents of approved premises are required to submit to drug tests if requested by members of staff in some circumstances, but it is not a comprehensive scheme. The detection of prescription drugs and psychoactive substances in particular can be evaded. It is therefore clear that the current testing framework is far from perfect and we welcome the Bill, which would help to build a more comprehensive framework that enables approved premises to conduct drug testing in line with the regime used in prisons. Not only would that allow for the testing of a greater range of substances; it would allow offender managers to use urine testing, rather than oral fluid testing, which detects a far wider range of drugs over a longer period of time. The measures would also allow for anonymous sample testing to help to understand the extent of substance use and to help to identify any new substances.

It is absolutely right that managers of an approved premises should have the tools to identify drug misuse and better understand the types of drugs that are being used, but we are also pleased to see that the Bill provides assistance and rehabilitation. I welcome the points the hon. Member for Aylesbury made in relation to that not just today, but on Second Reading and in Committee. Residents who test positive for drugs will be directed to appropriate substance misuse organisations first, with punitive sanctions not the primary purpose of the new regime. That is something we very much welcome. All these measures will help offender managers to better support those in their care. That will not only improve the rehabilitation of residents but decrease the risk to members of the public.

However, to truly tackle drug use in approved premises we also have to look at what is happening in our prisons. Following over a decade of Tory Government, drug use in prisons has increased by 500%. Our overcrowded prisons are in crisis—failing to rehabilitate, failing to stem the tide of drugs flowing into them and failing to keep us safe. The Government hailed their prisons White Paper as a great success but it was merely a sticking plaster over the deep wounds caused by 12 years of Conservative neglect. The statistics speak for themselves. There has been a 12% drop in inmates enrolling in drug and alcohol courses over the last four years, with fewer offenders taking these programmes. That simply leads to greater addiction and inmates learning nothing but more criminality. And what of the Justice Secretary’s flagship programme of introducing £1 million X-ray scanners in all men’s prisons? They are detecting only a quarter of the number of contraband items being found in manual checks by prison officers. This is a Government that is high on tax but soft on crime. The perilous state of our prisons means that a third of adults released from custody go on to reoffend within a year, costing the taxpayer £18 billion and meaning that we are less safe on our streets.

We welcome the Bill, but unless the Government get to grips with the fundamental problems across our justice system they will be condemning many to a cycle of reoffending. I commend the hon. Member for Aylesbury for his determination in bringing the Bill before the House and I wish him every success as it passage continues.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall my “Dear colleague” letter of around 13 September in which I set out that I cannot provide detailed casework answers for people who are still in Afghanistan. There are now two schemes—ARAP and the ACRS. We have set out the eligibility criteria, as I explained in my statement. I encourage him to look at that statement as well as the statement that will come after this debate to see the details that we will be setting out.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and for the opening of the ACRS today. Local authorities in my constituency are playing their part. The Corporation of London is supporting 500 Afghan nationals with covid and flu vaccines. It is also, in the Guildhall, teaching them the English language, and now we need to be looking at the employment side. Addison Lee, the transport business in my constituency, has asked me to make it known that it is desperately keen to support the Government in skills and jobs for Afghan refugees. Will the Minister therefore explain what the employment strategy is for Afghan refugees?

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend, and Westminster City Council and the City of London, who have done an amazing job in looking after so many people so well. I will refer her very good suggestion to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who is responsible for employment. The DWP is working up plans and we are very keen to get people who are able to into jobs as quickly as possible.

Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I am afraid that the devolution of justice in Wales would not achieve the right hon. Lady’s suggested objectives, not least because the drug supply lines into Wales run from forces in England—from Liverpool, the west midlands and London. A co-ordinated approach to the problem is required from a policing point of view, making sure that we enforce consistently across the country where we can. My view is that enforcement in Scotland, for example, is held back by that lack of co-ordination. We would like to try to improve it. We need to work more closely together, but we cannot pretend that this problem affects the home nations separately. We must work together.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s 10-year strategy to fight the evil that is the drugs industry. I particularly welcome the emphasis on holding professional classes to account for their actions. They may want to buy their Fairtrade coffee and go to the farmers’ market to buy organic food, but perhaps they should spend more time thinking about the cocaine that they buy for their weekend parties, because that fuels county lines, which is possibly the worst grooming and safeguarding concern for our young people. Does he agree that we must treat the drug barons involved in county lines as predators who are using and grooming children? Perhaps we should look to put them on the sex offenders’ register and ensure that they are held to account for their crimes against children.

[Kit Malthouse]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. She represents what is sadly one of the drug epicentres of the country in central London, and she is right that much of the drug abuse, violence and degradation is driven by casual, thoughtless use by people who do not regard themselves as addicted but who are nevertheless complicit in the violence. In spring next year, we hope to publish a White Paper with a structure of escalating impositions on such individuals, which means that we will be as likely to see a drugs operation outside Lancaster Gate or Bayswater tube station or in Belgravia as in other parts of the capital to ensure that we get among those people. She is right that we must focus very much on those drug barons and put them behind bars if we possibly can.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

There is much to welcome in this far-reaching Bill, with tougher sentences for violent crime, for child murderers and for sex offenders, with greater efforts to remove knives and weapons from our streets, and with the inclusion of Kay’s law to provide greater protection for those who find the bravery to speak up against violence and sexual offences in their own homes. I could go on, but in the time I have, I will focus on an issue that greatly affects my constituency—namely, the right to protest outside this place, in the heart of my constituency.

The recent history of legislating on protests outside Parliament makes for interesting reading. Labour Members who question the Bill’s impact on the freedom to engage in democratic protest may wish to cast their minds back to sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, in which a Labour Government prohibited protest within a kilometre of Parliament without prior agreement with the Metropolitan police. Fortunately, the Conservative Government repealed those restrictive sections in 2011.

If this weekend has taught us anything, it is that there is a huge difference between a peaceful vigil where people come together to express shared grief and outrage, and protests that take place day after day for weeks on end and that can occasionally bring unpleasant disruption to those living and working locally. Central London has seen changes in the way that protests are organised and in their longevity. They are not always organised by specific groups. They are movements, often with different aims and objectives. Some come to protest peacefully, but others may have the aim of causing disruption and even destruction. I believe passionately in the right to protest; it is one of the values we hold so dear in this country. The clauses in the Bill do not restrict the right to lawful protest. What they do is bring static protests into line with the provisions that already exist.

I accept that some of the language in the Bill could benefit from tightening up, and I am sure that that will be done as the Bill progresses. Much has been highlighted about the democratic and human right to protest, and I agree, but let us not forget the human rights of my constituents who live with over 500 protests or marches a year. I see a huge spike in my mailbag when Westminster plays host to a major protest, with constituents highlighting that a few cause them distress and loss of amenity. They do not question the right to protest, but they do not accept becoming prisoners in their own home and the distress that they often feel as a result of a small minority of protesters. Criminality is what the Bill aims to prevent, and that is surely something that everyone in this place wants to achieve.