UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Nickie Aiken

  • Nickie Aiken – 2023 Speech on Pride Month

    Nickie Aiken – 2023 Speech on Pride Month

    The speech made by Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2023.

    It is a huge privilege to speak in the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing it. It gives me great pride to represent a part of London that has such a profound LGBT+ history. I feel fortunate that my constituency includes Soho, one of the world’s best known gay districts, as well as places such as the west end and Piccadilly Circus, which all form part of London’s LGBTQ+ social and cultural fabric.

    From hosting the first UK march in 1972, places such as Soho have developed at the centre of London’s gay community. Historically, it is of huge importance, and many of the conversations on gay rights started in the bars and spaces that still line the streets of Soho today. It was on those streets and in those spaces that people came to show their solidarity. They stood up not just for themselves but for the gay community everywhere. To that, I pay tribute. They made their case for reform despite visceral discrimination. They listened to those who opposed them and challenged them in open debate. Slowly but surely, they won the support not just of parliamentarians in this place but of wider society. I pay tribute to all those trailblazers. Because of those people, support in Britain for the LGBT+ community has been built on firm foundations. It is now embedded in our culture and supported by all mainstream political parties.

    Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)

    I agree with the hon. Member that we have had firm foundations in the UK. I think that we were ranked as No. 3 in the list of LGBTQI+ friendly countries, but we have fallen down that list quite considerably. Can she think of any possible reason why that might be?

    Nickie Aiken

    I have no reason to think why we would have fallen. It is important that we continue to have strong policy supporting the LGBT+ community, because it is the diversity of this great city of London and this great country of the United Kingdom that makes us strong. We must ensure that the rights of gay people and all people are at the forefront of our policymaking.

    I recently spoke to activist and campaigner Philip Baldwin on an episode of my podcast about the challenges that the LGBT+ community has faced, from fighting for equal rights to breaking down stigmas. He told me that in 2003, at the age of 24, he was diagnosed with HIV; a week later, he was told that he also had hepatitis C. Because of medical advancements, his HIV status is no longer a life sentence and his hepatitis C has been cured. When he got his diagnosis, it was not the life sentence that, back in the ’80s and ’90s, my friends had to face, because thanks to scientific and medical advancements and attitudes among scientists and doctors, people can now live with a diagnosis of HIV and have approximately the same life expectancy as everybody else. When I was a teenager, an HIV diagnosis was a death sentence.

    This new era of treatment was made possible in part by researchers at St Mary’s Hospital in my constituency of Cities of London and Westminster. From the early 1980s, St Mary’s became the site of groundbreaking trials that would change the course of treatment and research for years to come. Those included a pioneering study of 400 gay men led by Professor Jonathan Weber, the current dean of the faculty of medicine who was a junior doctor back then.

    When I was drafting my speech, I spent some time reflecting on how far LGBT rights have come in my lifetime. In fact, 2023 marks 20 years since the repeal of section 28: the law that, in dark days, banned the promotion of homosexuality in the UK. It gives me no pleasure to recognise that that law was brought in by a previous Conservative Administration.

    I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said about the relationship and sex education review currently going on. As a mother of two—one of them has now left school—I believe it is vital we ensure that our children are talking about sexuality, consent, respect and everything else that is informed within relationship and sex education. There should no ban, including on education on homosexuality and trans. It must be age-appropriate.

    We have talked about section 28 and how far we have come. Today, I am so proud that same-sex marriage is legal and that discrimination against the LGBT+ community is rightly outlawed. Conversion therapy is due to be banned, and I hope that it will be. The sooner that becomes law, the better.

    Only the other day, I was having a conversation about how far we have come in Parliament itself. Twenty years ago, when the then Labour Government introduced a Bill to allow gay people to adopt—I am sure my Conservative colleagues will be as interested in this as I was—the Conservative parliamentary party was whipped to vote against it. However, there were three Conservative MPs who rebelled and defied the Whip: George Osborne, David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Whether hon. Members agree with their politics or not, that rebellion was the start of a new wave of Conservative thinking about gay rights. It was that new generation of Conservatives, led by David Cameron in government, who were responsible for passing the last major piece of LGBT equality legislation. With the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, gay people were finally treated as equals, and the last piece of legal discrimination aimed specifically at this group of British people was removed.

    When David Cameron launched the Government’s gay marriage legislation—it was controversial in parts of our party at the time—I remember that he said:

    “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”

    That resonates with everything I believe in. He was saying that the Conservative party is a home for everyone, so let us not forget how far Britain has come in welcoming LGBT people as valued and respected members of our society.

    We have made great progress towards LGBT+ equality in my lifetime, but the fight is far from over. As we have discussed, the world remains a dangerous place for many gay people. I was appalled to learn of the recent anti-gay Bill in Uganda. In the UK, we can still go further with gay rights, and we must ban conversion therapy. With that, I look forward with hope and with pride.

  • Nickie Aiken – 2023 Speech on Heritage Assets in London

    Nickie Aiken – 2023 Speech on Heritage Assets in London

    The speech made by Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    When I stood for election, I promised my constituents that I would be a strong local voice. This debate is at the heart of that promise. The Cities of London and Westminster sit in the heart of our nation’s capital. It may be considered one of a handful of global cities, but to those of us who call it home it is also a group of local villages, with local people who are incredibly proud of their neighbourhood’s history. Whether it is Covent Garden, the square mile, Marylebone, Pimlico, Hyde Park or the west end, heritage matters. Heritage matters for so many reasons, not least because of its significant pull factor for tourism. In London we see that on a magnified scale, with people coming from all over the world to visit our heritage buildings, palaces, iconic sites and parks, and enjoy our cultural offer. Places such as Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey will come into sharp focus later this year with the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla. Right here, the Palace of Westminster, where we sit today, is a UNESCO world heritage site. I can therefore think of no better time for this debate, with this being English Tourism Week.

    I recognise the incredible work that my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department is doing to bolster UK tourism, especially since the pandemic. In particular, I applaud the Department’s support for heritage and the arts including, of course, the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, and measures within the tourism recovery plan. I do so in large part because London’s unique appeal lies in its ability for its heritage assets to tell the many stories of a 2,000-year-old city.

    In London, our historic buildings are so common that it is easy for us to take them for granted without giving them a second thought, but without protection, those buildings may not be here in the future. That is made clear in Historic England’s annual at-risk register, which highlights the critical health of England’s most valued historic places. For those in the Cities of London and Westminster, such places have huge community importance, from the Buddhist temple in Margaret Street to the former Samaritan Hospital for Women in Marylebone, and the 18th-century church of St Mary Woolnoth in the City of London. Those are valued historic places, many of which, according to Historic England, are at risk of being lost.

    In 2022, London had 421 listed buildings, 101 places of worship, 25 archaeological entries, 12 parks and gardens and 72 conservation areas that were at risk of neglect, decay or inappropriate change. Thankfully, many have been rescued thanks to heritage bodies and dedicated teams of volunteers, community groups, charities, owners and local government, all working together. For example, two historic buildings with heritage value were recently under threat in the two cities, but both were saved due to community action that I was delighted to fully support. I speak of Bevis Marks synagogue—the oldest synagogue in continuous use in the United Kingdom—and the historic Simpson’s Tavern in Leadenhall, which is 250 years old and a constant in an ever-changing part of the City of London. Both were under threat, but local people stood up and said no to unfettered development, and yes to heritage.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I commend the hon. Lady, who I spoke to beforehand, for securing this debate. She has said not a word that I do not fully support and see the need for. She is right to say that our heritage assets are historic and need to be retained and protected, and that can happen only through funding. She also referred to tourism. Our tourism goes across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we can all benefit. I encourage people to come to London for their holidays, and I am sure she encourages people to come to my constituency of Strangford for holidays. Whenever she comes, I suggest that she goes and visits Scrabo tower, an historic building that has been retained for two or three hundred years. It overlooks Strangford lough, and whenever I go home on the plane on a Thursday night—I usually head home then, but now it will be tomorrow morning—I see Scrabo tower and I know I am coming home, and it always does my heart good.

    Nickie Aiken

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he knows, I have visited Strangford several times and I plan to do so in the near future. It is a great and beloved place that is part of the United Kingdom.

    We cannot rely solely on community action to protect our cultural assets. There are cases where local people and local government really make an effort to ensure we look after heritage assets—we saw that with the site of Smithfield market, which has been in place since the 14th century. It is now to be the home of the Museum of London, which is moving. The development plans pay a lot of attention to preserving the historic fabric of London for future generations, and I pay tribute to that. I appreciate that not everyone is happy to lose the meat market at Smithfield, but there are cases where development can be done well to create a new offer for the next generation.

    There are also cases where people are still fighting to save their heritage. I share the concerns of Barbican residents about proposals to knock down and redevelop the former home of the Museum of London and Bastion House, and replace it with a major office development. I am delighted to work with the Barbican Association and Barbican Quarter Action to ensure local voices are heard by the City of London Corporation, and that these unique and important historic places are saved for community use, and, hopefully, housing. They are functional historic assets that serve their community and add to London’s cultural offer. That is so important, because communities want to see their local heritage thrive.

    Yes, concentrating on digital and tech is important for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we cannot afford to lose focus on the conservation of the country’s cultural and historic heritage. Without that emphasis, heritage will be at risk. London is modernising, but tourism figures and local support underline the popularity of the historic landscape. People care passionately about their historic environment. They want to be involved in decisions about their heritage and how we manage change.

    A good example of that recently was when constituents, as well as heritage experts and heritage bodies, wrote to me concerned that Westminster City Council was not, in their view, giving enough consideration to the historical significance of Victorian gas-powered lamps in its plans to replace them with LED replicas. There are now very few functioning gas lamps left in Westminster. Each, in its own right, is a work of art and a piece of our history, surviving the Blitz and London’s urban revolution, but not all of them will survive due to the council’s diktat to replace them with LED lamps.

    Thankfully, the brilliant London Gasketeers, a fantastic group of locals, are rallying to save these historic lamps. I met the London Gasketeers on Maunsel Street in Westminster to show my solidarity with their cause, along with many locals. Many of those local people had never been part of a campaign before and they were delighted to support the London Gasketeers. The cause gained wide-ranging support: everyone from myself to the president of the GMB union—believe it or not—historians, actors, cabbies, heritage experts and, most importantly, a diverse mix of Westminster residents who care passionately about their local heritage. We have been successful. I pay tribute to the London Gasketeers and I am delighted to see many of them in the Public Gallery this afternoon.

    Things like gas lamps might seem trivial to some, but like it or not, they are our material history. People care because Westminster’s heritage belongs to everyone. Such things matter to our overall social landscape, and are so important because London is a city where history and modernity remain intrinsically linked. The same can be said for urban development. Consider Soho, which has always been characterised by its narrow streets that lend it a friendly, human scale. That is part of Soho’s material history. However, the pavement licensing scheme, which might have been a great offer during covid as an emergency lifeline to many local restaurants and bars, could now have a detrimental effect on the historic streetscape if it becomes permanent without any protections in place. That is why I am calling on the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that guidance accompanying the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is clear about the conditions on which licences are granted. It is important that local councils have the flexibility to determine where it is appropriate to have a licence and where it is not.

    Beyond the principal argument on access, we need to ensure that our streetscape is consistent with Soho’s conservation area status, respecting Soho’s unique history and character. We must preserve elements of material history and evolve sensitively in places that already have protection, such as Soho’s conservation area, or deserve protection, such as Westminster’s Victorian gas lamps or London’s historic buildings and places.

    The preservation of our heritage and cultural assets draws millions of tourists to London every year. A VisitBritain survey found that the vast majority of tourists see Britain as a place where heritage meets vibrancy and modernity. The same can be said of our cultural institutions, as 15% of international tourists attend a play, musical, opera or ballet. I am incredibly proud of the vibrant arts and culture offer in my constituency, much of which can be found in the historic west end, dating back to the 1600s. In fact, according to the Office for National Statistics, 8% of the UK’s art and culture businesses are based in the Cities of London and Westminster—around 2,500 businesses.

    There is no doubt that the past few years have been extremely difficult for the arts and culture. The commercial uncertainty of the current climate has not helped. Rising global inflation and consistent train and tube strikes have all had a knock-on effect, hampering the recovery of this £2.4 billion sector. We saw during the pandemic the fragility of the industry. We cannot be complacent; we must protect our cultural assets. After all, heritage and theatre bring in £890 million a year, with more than 16 million people attending London theatres last year.

    We need to work with the theatre sector in London to develop a strong UK talent pipeline, through investment in the arts premium and development of the culture education plan. My hope is that will mean that we can make sustainable, evidence-based decisions to conserve our culture and heritage while enabling people to enjoy them. While I am on this point, although London is not part of the new levelling-up agenda per se, it forms the heartbeat of British artists and culture. We risk losing those institutions at our peril. We saw that with Arts Council England’s rash decision to cut funding to the English National Opera, based in the London Coliseum, not far from here. That decision would have seen the loss of a national icon that gave local people so much—not just world-class opera performances but local initiatives such as the ENO’s Breathe programme, which supports people suffering with long covid.

    I urge the Minister to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the arts and culture sector, and in particular the west end. We cannot forget the strength of the sector as an entrepreneurial and SME-led economic driver locally, nationally and globally. For those reasons, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on the importance of protecting heritage assets in London.

    Since London’s founding in what is now the square mile in the City of London, this has been an ever-changing metropolis. Each generation has added its own personal touch, culminating in a hugely diverse and historic modern city. Now more than ever, it is our duty to ensure that we do not lose what makes London London. Therefore, we must be proactive in protecting our cultural assets, from the west end to the wider historic fabric of London, which is becoming increasingly under threat.

    I urge the Minister to reaffirm her commitment to protecting our heritage assets for future generations, and ask that she work with London’s cultural sector to stimulate growth, encourage tourism and safeguard the industry. London’s historic assets are at risk of being lost to history; we cannot allow that happen.

  • Nickie Aiken – 2022 Speech on the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

    Nickie Aiken – 2022 Speech on the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

    The speech made by Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 21 October 2022.

    I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, and I feel privileged to speak in this debate and support the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I am proud that there are a number of hon. Members on this side of the House who—they may not accept it—are feminists, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It is important to recognise that this should not be about women’s rights; this is about wanting to ensure that our country supports all its employees, male or female. It is sad that in the 21st century we still have to introduce Bills such as this to give women protection in the workplace.

    The Bill provides long overdue guarantees to pregnant women that they will not be dismissed during or shortly after pregnancy. It is also important to remember—we have not yet touched on this—that the Bill contains protection for those adopting children. A number of my gay friends have adopted children over recent years, and they will welcome this progressive Bill. This is not just about women, it is also about gay couples who are involved in adoption or a pregnancy, and it is important to highlight that—[Interruption.] I thank my right hon. Friend. Perhaps he would like to intervene.

    Bob Stewart

    I was just pointing out that a lot of my friends, male and female and married, also want to adopt. They have that right too, which is great.

    Nickie Aiken

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about adoption, whether by a gay or heterosexual couple. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central is right to say that women should not have to choose between a career and raising a family, but unfortunately, far too many women are forced to make that choice. In 2016, a survey commissioned by BEIS found that three in four women experienced some form of pregnancy or maternity discrimination. As we have heard, 54,000 pregnant women a year are dismissed from their jobs. That eye-watering statistic should shame this country, and I hope that if passed, the Bill will go towards rectifying that shameful record. It is wholly unacceptable, but nevertheless we see that story across the board.

    In my constituency I hear the same stories again and again from women who are trying to balance family planning with their career. As I said in an earlier intervention, I am sponsoring my own private Member’s Bill to secure employment rights for those undertaking fertility treatment. That Bill seeks similar outcomes to those sought by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central. After all, this is 2022 not 1922, and people need to feel comfortable to choose to have a child—or more than one child—whether that child is conceived naturally or through fertility treatment, and no matter where they work and without fear of their career being negatively impacted.

    That fear is all too familiar for women across the country. There are women who are trying to make a career, but who are conscious that they have a limited time in which they can have a child. As I said earlier, when I had my first child aged 35, the average age of the woman in the hospital I was in was 39. Women now have careers and want to establish themselves in their 20s and into their 30s, and they then try to have a child.

    Shaun Bailey

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is also about ensuring empowered women leadership. In a previous life she was the leader of Westminster City Council—if I may say so, probably the best leader we ever had. In this era of political comebacks, who knows? Perhaps another comeback is on the cards. We have to empower women leaders to encourage others. Given her experience as a woman in leadership, how does she feel about women leaders empowering women having children later in their career to find balance?

    Nickie Aiken

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember being pregnant with my first child, aged 35, holding down a full-time job and attempting to be elected to Westminster City Council. I was elected when seven months pregnant with my second child. Believe me, that was an interesting time. I do not think I would have been able to that without the support of my employer at the time Bradford & Bingley, and my group leader Sir Simon Milton, the late leader of Westminster City Council. I was very well supported but, sadly, not all women are. That is why this legislation is needed.

    My hon. Friend is right to highlight that women in leadership roles—and men, but women in particular—must support women in the generations below. We have been fortunate to get to a certain place in our careers, and it is our duty as feminists and human beings to support women—and men—coming through their careers.

    Tulip Siddiq

    I applaud the hon. Lady for having been a councillor and leader while having children, because if I had had children while I was a councillor, I could not have done it, given the hours we were doing. On the fact that her employers were good at letting her take time off or working around her pregnancy, is the problem not that we rely so much on good will? It should not be based on good will; there needs to be legislative change to achieve equal opportunity for everyone. Does the hon. Lady want to comment on that?

    Nickie Aiken

    To be perfectly honest, it is really sad that we have to legislate. We have to because we must ensure that women have those rights, but I would prefer it if we did not have to. As part of my private Member’s Bill, I am trying to achieve a voluntary workplace pledge to ensure that employers support their employees who are going through fertility treatment. I wish that I did not need to do that, but I have to.

    Returning to this brilliant piece of legislation, we have heard some excellent interventions and speeches from colleagues across the House. I am pleased that the Bill provides guarantees to women and their partners—there is an important clause in the Bill about partners during pregnancy. The Bill does not just cut off support at the birth of a child; vitally, women and their partners are supported during maternity leave, shared family leave and adoption leave.

    I am a mother of two; my children are much older, in their late teens. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) that we parents never stop being parents; we never stop worrying or trying to do the best we can. I am sure that one day he will have the honour of being a parent. I have gone through pregnancy and the stress of being pregnant. I had a miscarriage before I successfully had my first child and I know the stress of that second pregnancy, worrying whether it will be successful.

    As I said, I worked for Bradford & Bingley and was very supported. That was an example of good practice. Before I was on maternity leave with my first child I was a public relations manager; when I came back, they promoted me to head of PR and gave me support. I worked three days a week, but I felt I could not do my job effectively in three days, and the other two days I was trying to balance being a mum of a young baby and work. It was my decision to go to my line manager and say that I wanted to work four days, so that I could do my job properly and be a full-time mum on the other days. It supported me in that, and crucially Bradford & Bingley realised how dedicated I was to my job and, even though I was working four days, it chose to pay me for full-time work. That is an example of an exemplary employer. Sadly, it was a victim of the banking crisis and I lost my job. But that was 15 years ago and an example of how employers can support women through pregnancy, and support mothers—or fathers—of young children.

    Shaun Bailey

    My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way, and it is always great to hear about personal experience. She represents the City of London as part of her constituency and we talked earlier in the debate about encouraging the brightest and the best, and those who have the right skillset. Does she agree that the Bill would ensure that the brightest and best—such as my hon. Friend, if I may say so—are able to stay in their roles in our financial centres and contribute to vital parts of our economy?

    Nickie Aiken

    My hon. Friend makes another good point. The City of London can be a beacon of exemplary employer-employee relations, and I hope and expect that the Bill will ensure that small, medium and large businesses show respect to working women who become pregnant and are raising a family and ensure that they have the support they deserve.

    It is important to remember that going back to work after maternity leave can be a daunting step for many women. I was fortunate that I had the support of my employer, but many do not. That is why I welcome the extension of workplace support for women to six months after their maternity leave. A recent study found that it takes an average of six months to adjust back to the workplace fully, for multiple reasons. It may also be that women are coming back to work after a second or third child, and trying to balance a large family with work can be very difficult.

    Going back to work can mean adjusting to new staff members who have been employed while someone has been on maternity leave, and they have to start establishing new working relationships. New practices or policies may have been introduced in the workplace. It is important that someone coming back to work after six, nine, 12 months or even longer is supported in understanding new policies or working with new employees.

    Going back to work is difficult: I did it myself a couple of times. Particularly with a first child, it is difficult to understand how to balance parenthood with a job. Most working mums will know that we feel guilty when we are at work and when we are at home. We need to find a balance, and it is crucial to support women at that stage in their lives.

    To go back to my point about adoption, if someone has tried to have a child for many years but failed to do so and then chosen to adopt, it is a very difficult time in their life. Having time at home without the threat of being made redundant is crucial, and that also applies to gay couples in the same position.

    Too often, companies wishing to cut back will choose a woman who is pregnant or on maternity leave as an easy target, but I think it is agreed across the House that that is categorically wrong. No woman should ever be disadvantaged because she is having a child or has had a child. In 2018, the Government commissioned a report on women and work after childbirth, which found that women and men experienced a large divergence in their careers following the birth of a baby.

    Fewer than 30% of women are in full-time work or self-employed three years after childbirth, compared to 90% of fathers. That is a clear example of how giving birth can affect a woman’s career chances. In the 21st century, it is a shocking statistic. I firmly believe that we must encourage women to feel empowered when they have a child, not anxious, not fearing that their job prospects are now weakened or that they may be at the top of the list to be made redundant.

    There is no doubt that employers sometimes handle pregnancy and maternity poorly. I was appalled to read the finding of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that one in five pregnant women experience harassment at work owing to their pregnancy or flexible working requests. The commission also found that more than 50,000 women a year felt forced out of their jobs by poor treatment. We should note that this is also an issue of retention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) referred to the need to retain women for productivity purposes. That is crucial: we cannot afford, in this country, to lose female talent on account of poor protection. It is also important to note at this time that the birth rate is falling, and we need women to have babies for the sake of our economy—not today, not tomorrow, but in 10, 20, 30 and 40 years’ time. The Bill is not just about the immediate; it is about our country’s future.

    Among women with careers, we have seen the subsequent loss in earning and career progression that is termed the motherhood penalty. What kind of country do we want to be if we put a price on someone’s career because of motherhood and call it a penalty? It is not a country that I want to live in, and it is not a country in which I want my daughter—who is now 18—to grow up and start her career. It means that employers are losing female talent at a time when we need to retain talent, both male and female.

    Further data reinforces the concern about gender inequality, with an emphasis on the penalty that maternity represents for women’s salary and careers. It is crucial that we provide viable solutions to rectify that, and the Bill is certainly one solution. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) mentioned the gender pay gap. The fact is that women can feel, and indeed are, penalised for having children, and it can affect their ongoing ability to increase their pay, move up the career ladder and enjoy the benefits that that brings.

    Births are falling in this country. In the last 10 years we have seen a drop in the birth rate in England and Wales of nearly 16%.

    Shaun Bailey

    My hon. Friend has just mentioned the birth rate and the wider picture. I know that, since her days on the council, she has been passionate about building a strong sense of community in Westminster, but people in this area generally have careers and are not growing families. Many of them cannot have children, given the demographic. That will surely have an impact on communities, and the sense of community, in areas such as my hon. Friend’s in Westminster.

    Nickie Aiken

    My hon. Friend has made another excellent point. This is about ensuring that we encourage families to grow, and encourage women and gay couples either to have children or to adopt them, because it is families who create a community. As my hon. Friend says, in central London having families of all types—whether they are single households, older people or growing families—is crucial to community cohesion. Whether a woman is living in central London, the midlands, the north, Scotland or Wales—whatever part of the country she lives in—she must feel protected in having a child, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

    The Government have said that family life and the economy will suffer unless workplace practices are brought into the 21st century. We need to take that and staff retention seriously. One of the last things that I did as the leader of Westminster City Council, before I came to this place, was to change our parental leave policy. I introduced a policy whereby there was full pay for 12 months for people who were either on maternity or paternity leave and shared parental leave. That sent the message to staff that they were so important to keeping the council going and that they were part of its success. In the year following that announcement, there was a huge increase in people having children in Westminster City Council, and that is a very good thing.

    We simply cannot afford to let women be sidelined or penalised because they are pregnant and want to start a family. I believe that there is no greater or more important job in this world than raising a child, but the economic and emotional burden on parents can be equally as tremendous. We need to support our workforce, our women in the workforce and our families. For those reasons, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill and commend it to the House.

  • Nickie Aiken – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Nickie Aiken – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Nickie Aiken, the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2022.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to place on the record, on behalf of my constituents, the huge appreciation that we all share for the life and service of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I also place on the record my condolences to His Majesty the King, and to all the royal family, about which much has been said already.

    I feel humbled to stand here today as the Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster, a constituency with such rich links to Her Majesty’s reign—from her birth in Bruton Street in Mayfair to her funeral, which will be held in Westminster Abbey.

    The two Cities were the vessel from which Her Majesty ruled, advised and steered our nation. Indeed, the two Cities are home to so many of the physical monuments of her reign. There is Buckingham Palace, of course, which has become the epicentre of the nation’s grief in the past two days. There is the Mall, the national stage for the pomp and ceremony that binds us to our past and our future. It has seen coronation processions, the daily routes of the Queen’s Guard, and the celebrations we saw back in the summer for the Queen’s platinum jubilee.

    There are St James’s Palace and Clarence House, where the Queen spent much of her youth and raised her young family before she took the throne in 1952. And of course there are Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s cathedral. The former was so pivotal in her life, from her marriage to her coronation and now, sadly, her funeral. The latter played an integral role in marking her extraordinary reign, especially with the services celebrating her silver, gold and diamond jubilees and, only a few months ago, that celebrating her platinum jubilee, which I was honoured to attend. Last night, of course, the cathedral led the first of many services of thanksgiving to our late Sovereign.

    When thinking about the Queen, I think of her role as the Head of State. For me, one of her everlasting legacies will be how she brought together the Commonwealth nations, growing their union from eight countries to 56 collective nations brought together under her stewardship. I often think how unappreciated Her Majesty’s skills in diplomacy were. Just think about what our world looked like at the beginning of her reign, and what it is now. By sheer force of character, she healed a deeply fractured world post empire. She fostered a family of nations that bore no resemblance to the empire of the past and that was instead built on the values of friendship, freedom and peace. Looking at the Cities of London and Westminster, I see the epitome of the Commonwealth’s legacy in both people and values, and we have the late Queen to thank for that. Like everyone else, when we heard the news of the late Queen’s passing, it hit us personally, because she had been such a constant throughout our lives and we have all shared in the celebrations of her life.

    One of my first memories of the Queen was the silver jubilee in 1977. As a Brownie, I received the 25p silver coin, and I recall the excitement of receiving that gift. For the diamond jubilee, my own daughter Georgia, then aged eight, was invited to present Her Majesty with a bouquet of flowers when she visited Fortnum and Mason in Piccadilly on the first stop of her jubilee tour.

    For me, the Queen had a unique ability to tap into the hearts of every single person, and a lot of that was because of her characteristic sense of humour and sense of fun, which cut through with people of all ages and backgrounds. In fact, I remember sitting on the sofa with my son Harry as we watched the opening of the Olympics in 2012, and the joy on his face at seeing the Queen jump out of a helicopter with James Bond. I think to this day he still believes that it happened. I felt a similar feeling for the new generation of children as we saw her share tea with Paddington Bear this summer. It is comforting to me that she placed such a premium on our future generations—especially now, as we look to the next generation of the Crown in King Charles III. Indeed, I was moved to see the new King and the Queen Consort walk into Buckingham Palace as monarch and Queen for the first time.

    As a new chapter in our history begins, the Cities of London and Westminster now prepare for another landmark in the Crown’s passage through history: the funeral of Elizabeth the Great and the coronation of King Charles III in Westminster Abbey. For that, I say God bless the Queen and long live the King.

  • Nickie Aiken – 2022 Speech on the Sharing Economy and Short-Term Letting

    Nickie Aiken – 2022 Speech on the Sharing Economy and Short-Term Letting

    The speech made by Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered short-term letting and the sharing economy.

    I have called this debate to once again draw attention to the negative impact on our neighbourhoods up and down the country caused by the abuse of short-term lettings. Short-term lettings are when property is let on a nightly or weekly basis usually for leisure and tourism purposes. We are seeing them pop up on a variety of platforms, including Airbnb, Booking.com, Tripadvisor and Expedia. Since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have seen an increasing number of properties, which would otherwise have been rented out on a long-term basis, being turned into basically holiday accommodation. Between 2015 and 2020, the number of Airbnb listings in London alone grew by 378%. Research by London Councils found that by 2019, there were more than 73,000 listings for short-term lets in London across six of the largest online letting platforms. That is equivalent to one in every 50 homes in the capital.

    Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue with short-term lets is that they take housing stock out of the market? I have the neighbouring constituency of Kensington, and in the tourist areas, particularly around the South Kensington museums, there are streets that are almost exclusively Airbnbs. Many of those are one or two-bedroom properties, and that is aggravating the housing crisis because young people who would typically buy those properties simply cannot get access to them.

    Nickie Aiken

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With the explosion in the number of short-term lettings, a whole host of problems associated with such lettings have become more widespread across our neighbourhoods. I shall highlight a number of the issues we are seeing, which include increased pressure on housing stock, leading to higher property and rent prices—that is what my hon. Friend referred to. They also include a rise in associated antisocial behaviour, noise complaints and dumped rubbish, and an increasingly unfair playing field in the accommodation sector, which is placing more and more pressure on hotels and private bed-and-breakfast businesses.

    Since coming into force, the Deregulation Act 2015 introduced several changes that were designed to free businesses from the burdens caused by regulation and existing laws, including relaxing planning permission in London for short-term lets. When the Bill was going through Parliament, Westminster City Council predicted that homes would be, en masse, turned into lettings for tourists. We knew that those lettings would soon basically be turned into mini hotels, without any of the oversight or regulation that genuine hotels have to adhere to. That is why it was a relief in some contexts to see short-term lettings in London limited to just 90 nights per year under the Deregulation Act, following a sustained lobbying campaign by Westminster City Council. That was not enough, however, and sadly our worst fears have come to fruition.

    Without the right tools to enforce the Act our biggest concerns have become a reality for many local people, and many landlords involved in short-term lettings are ignoring the law. Research from 2019 estimated that 23% of 11,200 Airbnb listings in London alone were occupied for more than 90 nights in that year. With the number of short-term lettings skyrocketing, it is clear that we need urgently to get a grip of the situation, because it is becoming unsustainable.

    This is obviously not just a London issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) recently highlighted, 4,000 homes have come out of private rent in Devon since 2016, and 11,000 have joined the short-term holiday listings. I know from speaking to colleagues across the country that we are seeing that trend up and down the United Kingdom, particularly in places such as Cumbria and the south-west. This issue affects our whole country, and although problems such as strain on housing availability and the cost to local authorities may be the same nationwide, the diverse nature of the issue means that there will be no one-size-fits-all approach to resolving the problem. What we need, in my humble opinion, is for local authorities to be given the powers to do what they feel is right for their unique areas. For example, here in Westminster we need a licensing scheme much like those seen in other countries. Such schemes are generally set at a local level and ensure that standards are adhered to and that the market is not overwhelmed.

    We see key examples around the world. In Lisbon, the city council has implemented containment zones that limit the amount of short-term let accommodation within them. In Barcelona, landlords are required to have their properties inspected and approved before they can be let out. Closer to home, the Scottish Government have legislated for local authorities to introduce a short-term lets licensing scheme by October. It will be interesting to see how that works when it is implemented, and how successful it is.

    While such schemes differ from one another, they all suit their local needs, seeking to balance the sharing economy with the rights and amenity of local residents. That is what we should strive for across the UK, balancing tourism with the desire and need of locals to have a comfortable and quiet neighbourhood.

    We also see examples around the world where that has been taken further. In Atlanta in the United States, a tight licensing regime has been introduced with strict conditions. For example, hosts in that city have to hold a permit and pay an annual $150 fee. They face a $500 fine if a tenant violates city rules. They may have a maximum of two properties, one of which must be the host’s permanent residence. That is probably what we need for London.

    Across the world, we see that there is a full spectrum of examples and solutions, and it is about finding what works best in a local authority area. As it stands, the spirit of the Deregulation Act is not being met. We are seeing not the rise of individuals opening their spare rooms or their homes while they are on holiday, as the Government had hoped would happen under the Act, but a gradual increase in commercial businesses snatching up properties for the short-term letting market. Here in Westminster, 64% of hosts on Airbnb have at least two listings.

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

    The hon. Lady is right to emphasise both the scale and the commercial nature of the problem; a lot of people think it is marginal when, in fact, in some areas it is endemic. Last week, I talked to a local headteacher who said that her school’s intake had been affected by a local mansion flat area changing from being long-term accommodation for homeless families into luxury accommodation with a substantial proportion of short-term lets, changing the character and demographics of the entire area. That is why the Government need to act.

    Nickie Aiken

    I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly do on this.

    We are aware that, in Westminster and across central London, landlords can often skirt around the 90-night rule by posting their property on multiple sites or re-registering it in a location a few metres away. In turn, I am deeply worried that we are witnessing a hollowing out of central London, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) referred to regarding his local area, as properties convert all too easily from homes to holiday lets.

    At the start of 2022, the number of properties listed to rent across London was 35% lower than in pre-pandemic times. As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, the housing market in my constituency and across the capital is already squeezed on both affordability and availability. We currently have over 4,000 households on the Westminster social housing waiting list in the same area that has 7,230 available properties on Airbnb. The average house price in the two cities has risen by £32,000 a year over the past 25 years. The most troubling issue is that, according to SpareRoom, average rents have now risen in the capital by 13% in the last year alone. That is why I find it increasingly frustrating that, while I can easily find plenty of examples of hosts with 50 or even 100 properties available, I cannot find a home to rent on a long-term basis in my constituency in the same areas.

    The dramatic increase in the number of properties converting to the holiday accommodation market and away from the private rented sector is ensuring that people are forced out of central London. It is getting so bad that I fear the only realistic possibility of the young finding a property in central London is by playing Monopoly. I do not mean to be flippant, but it is getting that bad. For those lucky enough to be able to find a property, there is an increasing likelihood that they will still find themselves living close to short-term letting properties, no matter where they are. As I am sure it is for many of my colleagues, that is reflected in my mailbag by constituents who find themselves having to live next door to short-term letting properties.

    Felicity Buchan

    Does my hon. Friend agree that there are other attendant problems with short-term lets, such as antisocial behaviour, properties being taken over essentially for large parties, rubbish being put out on the wrong day and littering the street, and, sometimes, a lack of respect for the neighbourhood?

    Nickie Aiken

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of my constituents from Pimlico who wrote to me recently shares that view:

    “There has repeatedly been antisocial behaviour in the Airbnb-type flats in Tachbrook Street. The residents have no interest in the wellbeing of their neighbours. The flats are without doubt let throughout the year and the 90-day rule is completely ignored.”

    Post-pandemic complaints have increased in my constituency, with noise, rowdy parties, serious overcrowding, dumped rubbish and even sex work occurring within nightly let properties. From Mayfair to Marylebone and from Hyde Park to Covent Garden, no neighbourhood in Westminster is now free from the short-term let blight.

    On the ground, we have seen some pretty clear signals that short-term lets are increasingly causing social damage to our neighbourhoods. A YouGov study from 2019 found that 40% of Londoners felt that such accommodation was having a negative impact on the local sense of community. Worryingly, it also showed that one in five Londoners, when asked, felt that short-term lets had had a negative impact on safety in their local area. If these properties were rented out for just a few days a year, this issue might be manageable. However, as mentioned earlier, we know that is not the case. Local authorities lack the tools necessary to enforce the 90-night rule. As such, complaints are rising and communities are suffering.

    On antisocial behaviour, yes, the police and local authorities have powers to tackle it with antisocial behaviour and noise orders, but we do not always have the information needed to identify those involved. Of course, it is very hard for us to make general statements about what we would or would not think was a good idea, because this is a complex issue, but as I said earlier it is about flexibility. It is about giving local authorities the tools they need to protect their local areas. We have to be practical when it comes to enforcement measures. Right now, what continues to frustrate me, and I know thousands of my constituents, including councillors and officials in my local council, is that enforcement is virtually impossible, particularly when we do not know who is undertaking the antisocial behaviour. The lack of data makes it extremely hard for local authorities to identify them and then begin enforcement action.

    We need a change in the law to allow local authorities to fine landlords of properties that violate the rules, such as those on dumping rubbish. At the moment, responsibility lies with the tenant, not the landlord, even though the tenant will be long gone after having rented the property for a couple of nights—they have dumped the rubbish and they have gone. What we need is exactly what the former leader of Westminster City Council, Councillor Rachael Robathan, called for in response to more than 2,000 breaches of short-term letting rules—namely, to allow councils to go after the landlord rather than the short-term letter. That would help resolve the issue.

    The issue of tax compliance is also of concern. As the home sharing phenomenon becomes more mainstream, an important taxation revenue stream needs to be captured. As it stands, it is possible for landlords to hide their activities from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and to perhaps not tell the truth on their self-assessment forms. If local authorities were able to collect data on what properties are being let out on a short-term basis, HMRC could access that data and ensure that no one was able to avoid paying tax on any money raised.

    In 2018, the Government issued a call for evidence on the role of online platforms in ensuring tax compliance by their users, but there do not appear to have been any major developments since then. Ensuring proper compliance would go some way to levelling up the playing field with other parts of the tourism economy. As highlighted by UK Hospitality:

    “Between the short-term lets, hotel and B&B sectors, a regulatory mismatch has also occurred in terms of health and safety and taxation.”

    I appreciate that there is a degree of self-regulation in the industry, but that is not enough. While hotels and B&B businesses must go through all sorts of checks and regulations to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their guests, the same oversight does not exist for short-term letting. For example, while Airbnb insists on things such as insurance indemnity, proper fire precautions and safety certificates for gas and electricity, I have met Airbnb hosts who have not once been asked by a platform to prove that they meet those requirements. If we were able to collect tax receipts from short-term lets, that could and should help in the enforcement of laws. It is not just about tax collection; we also need to make sure that landlords are on the same playing field as bona fide hotels and B&B businesses.

    I want to make it very clear that I am not against short-term letting. I absolutely recognise the many positives. As an Airbnb user in the past, I have benefited from being able to rent a home while on holiday. Short-term letting has provided and does provide an innovative and imaginative competition to the accommodation industry. However, the bottom line is that those positive impacts are paired with negative impacts, including lower health and safety standards; unfair competition for other hospitality providers; general economic issues such as mixed tax revenues and less availability of long-term rentals; increased rents and house prices; and pricing ordinary local people out of their area’s housing and rental markets. That is happening not just in central London but across the UK. In many cases, neighbourhoods have changed, with issues including antisocial behaviour, overcrowding of properties and transient communities.

    A sustainable approach, hopefully in the form of evidence-based, data-driven regulation and policy making, should address some of those issues. As I said earlier, there is no easy fix, no one-size-fits-all approach, but there are certainly stepping stones that we need to introduce. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention not just to what I have said but, more importantly, to what we will hear later in this debate from Members of all political parties.

  • Nickie Aiken – 2022 Speech on the Public Order Bill

    Nickie Aiken – 2022 Speech on the Public Order Bill

    The speech made by Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 23 May 2022.

    As is seen week after week, my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster tends to be the epicentre of political protest in this country. That is hardly surprising, as it is home to the Government, to Parliament and to the UK’s financial heart in the City of London.

    I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members can imagine that the effective management of protests, particularly the most disruptive, is of interest to my constituents. They have first-hand experience of having to negotiate their daily lives with the rights of others to protest.

    In the hundreds of letters and emails that I have received from constituents highlighting the disruption that they have suffered during the days and weeks of organised protests, not one has called for the right to protest to be curbed. When it comes to public order, it is especially important to ask ourselves why the measures outlined in this Bill are proper and necessary. What has been made clear to me by both the Metropolitan police and the City of London police is that existing legislation has not kept pace with the evolving tactics of modern-day protesters.

    Specifically, the lack of a lock-on offence makes it almost impossible for the police to balance lawful protest and basic civil rights. Provisions in this Bill will change that. Clauses 1 and 2 will allow police pre-emptively to stop highly disruptive, and in some cases dangerous, lock-ons. Clause 1 is of particular importance, as it will make locking on an offence where such an act,

    “causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption”.

    That is absolutely right. We have seen individuals glue themselves to vehicles or use lock-on devices on the public highway.

    Last August, those tactics were used on Tower Bridge by protestors who brought parts of Central London to a standstill for hours. Protestors have encased their arms in tubes filled with concrete and locked themselves to makeshift structures at huge heights. We have even seen reports of protesters inserting nails and blades into those pipes in an effort to make removing them more difficult and dangerous for our police officers.

    We cannot overlook the very real concerns of thousands of ordinary people who are disrupted by demonstrations that go well beyond what is necessary. I utterly disagree with the suggestion that just because we agree with a cause, the disruptive activity is right. It is not. Protest tactics using lock-on devices are not just inconvenient for many, but can have real-life consequences—emergency vehicles unable to attend 999 calls, missed hospital appointments or someone unable to get to a dying loved one to say goodbye.

    It also frustrates me and many of my constituents that police officers involved in policing those protests are taken away from policing their neighbourhoods and concentrating on their local policing priorities. It is not just Westminster and City of London police officers being taken away from their daily duties. During a number of major days-long protests, I have seen officers from the home counties and Bedfordshire policing central London. I have even come across police vans in Covent Garden with the word “Heddlu” on them, which is Welsh for police.

    Removing lock-on devices safely requires specialist policing teams to be deployed in what can be high-risk environments, which takes time and significant resources. Just one protest group, Extinction Rebellion, had a total of 54 days of protest between 2019 and 2021, costing some £1.2 million a day. I therefore welcome clause 2, which would allow officers to act on reasonable suspicion that satisfies visual and intelligence-based qualifications to prevent the use of highly dangerous lock-ons.

    Since the publication of the Bill, I have listened to the argument that the offence is not necessary, and that the offences of wilful obstruction of the highway and aggravated trespass cover these actions. To an extent, that is true. However, they are only applicable after assembly of the structure, by which point we will have seen a chain of events that will ultimately lead to serious impositions on the surrounding area, businesses and local people.

    The sticking point in the Lords on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was provisions specifically relating to noise or limiting freedom of expression. I recognise that, and I accept that, for this kind of legislation, we need to reach an agreement that satisfies both this and the other place. However, I stress that clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill are absolutely necessary to rebalance lawful protest and civil rights. After all, in non-violent protests, the duty of the police is to take a balanced and impartial approach towards all those involved in or affected by the protest—an approach that is consistent with both human rights law and domestic legislation. We must ensure that both lawful protest and everyday life can continue without the basic rights being infringed in respect of either. I believe that the Public Order Bill does exactly that.

  • Nickie Aiken – 2020 Speech on Pedicabs in London

    Nickie Aiken – 2020 Speech on Pedicabs in London

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 9 June 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation of the carrying of passengers in Greater London by pedal cycles and power-assisted pedal cycles for hire or reward; and for connected purposes.

    I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar with the sight of pedicabs or rickshaws on the streets of London. Before covid-19 they might have come out of the theatre to a row of pedicabs ringing their bells, playing their music, touting for business and haggling over trips to stations, restaurants, bars or hotels. Pedicabs may seem like a fun way to end an evening—a white-knuckle ride through the streets of London on the way home. But hon. Members might have found there was a sting in the tail. They might have been told when they arrived at their destination that the price originally agreed was for one person and, as they were two, the price had now doubled. I have heard of tourists being charged upwards of £100 for a mile journey.

    Surely, you wonder, pedicabs must be regulated, run a meter, be insured and have their vehicles regularly inspected for faults and roadworthiness. Should they not have to undertake the same checks and balances of other vehicles for hire? Our traditional black cabs and private hires such as Uber are heavily regulated. Sadly, none of that is true for pedicabs. Due to a loophole in the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, pedicab operators are not classified as stage carriages. As a result, there is no requirement for insurance, no requirement for fares to be fixed or consistent, and no requirement for vehicles or drivers to be quality assessed. They are the only form of public transport in London that is not regulated in any way, and estimates suggest that there are about 2,000 of them in operation in central London alone.

    Alongside the fact that because pedicabs are not insured or checked in any way they are a risk to those who use them, they are proving to be a risk and a disruption to Londoners at large. They often play loud music late into the night as they drive the streets. They can drive dangerously on the pavements, putting pedestrians at risk. Accidents are becoming more frequent, and hit-and-runs are not uncommon. They have also been known to promote criminal behaviour. According to a 2015 Evening Standard report, pedicab drivers were being paid tips by prostitutes for taking passengers to brothels for sex, and there were reports of their facilitating drug dealing across the city. Westminster City Council receives a large number of complaints regarding pedicabs. In 2016, the last year for which the council maintained figures in this area, approximately 1,000 council-led interventions against pedicabs were required.

    This is not to say that all pedicab drivers or operators behave in this way. We have seen a growth in pedicab provision on the basis of providing an environmentally friendly alternative to taxis and other forms of public transport. Some operators have taken it upon themselves to insure their vehicles and drivers, as well as to regulate their fares. However, it remains the case that these good operators are under no obligation to take the steps that they have, and they remain in the minority. I would also ​like to take this opportunity to highlight the growing number of bona fide companies that we see using pedicabs to deliver goods around central London. Of course, they offer a more environmentally friendly delivery service, which should be welcomed. This is not about taking them off the roads; I would wish to encourage more much greener vehicles such as these on our streets, as long as they are roadworthy and the drivers have been checked.

    That is why I and a cross-party group of London MPs have brought this Bill before the House today. It is essential that Transport for London is given the powers to regulate pedicabs to make sure they are safe, that their fares are reasonable and consistent, and that rogue operators can no longer present a threat to residents and businesses in London. I also have cross-party support from outside this place. The Bill is supported by the Mayor of London and Lambeth Council, as well as Westminster City Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It is also supported by London Councils, a cross-party organisation representing London boroughs. The Bill is supported by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, the New West End Company and the Heart of London Business Alliance, as well as residents associations and amenity societies across Westminster, including the Soho Society, the Marylebone Association, the St Marylebone Society, the Covent Garden Community Association and the Knightsbridge Association.

    The Bill allows TfL to set the requirements of drivers’ eligibility and conditions, thereby preventing the current exploitation of some drivers by gangmasters. We must recognise that a minority of pedicab drivers may be at risk themselves of being trafficked and being part of modern slavery abuse. Having the regulation as outlined in the Bill could help to stop that practice if drivers have to be checked. The Bill protects the consumer by ensuring the quality and roadworthiness of vehicles. It will offer some comfort to businesses and residents by allowing for conditions to prevent pedicabs from standing or plying for hire in specific places or at specific times, as determined by Transport for London.

    This is a simple Bill. It is a clear Bill, and it is a Bill that is much needed and much wanted. I understand that the Government are sympathetic to what the Bill wishes to achieve, as I note that the response to a written question from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) in April said:

    “The Government is aware of concerns raised about unregulated pedicabs in London and as such, has committed to seek opportunities to introduce legislation that will enable the regulation of pedicabs.”

    I would be delighted to offer the Government such an opportunity by encouraging them to back my Bill on Second Reading.

    Last, but certainly not least, the Bill is supported by 3,000 of my constituents, who have pledged their support via my website. I am clear that this is not a Bill to ban pedicabs. I welcome them as part of London’s drive to become a greener city for us to live and work in, but they must be regulated. They must be safe, and there must be sanctions for injury or risk to pedestrians and customers. It is for those reasons that I hope the Bill will be introduced. No other city in the UK is subject to this loophole; it is just London that runs the risk. We must take this opportunity to correct that, and I commend this Bill to the House.

  • Nickie Aiken – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Nickie Aiken – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

    The measures outlined in this Bill send a clear message both to survivors and perpetrators: domestic abuse should not and will not be tolerated. Domestic abuse is a heinous, horrific crime, not just because of the lasting damage it will do to its survivors but because it strikes at the heart of what most of us hold so dear: our family; our home. The place where we are meant to feel safest, most loved and cherished becomes a prison—a dark and frightening place, and, in the very worst cases, a mental and physical torture chamber. Domestic abuse does not discriminate. It can occur in any relationship, gay or straight, in any family behind any closed door. There is not a single community or socioeconomic group that is unaffected by this crime. Its victims, its survivors and its perpetrators are our friends, family members, neighbours and colleagues.

    In the past month, all our lives have been turned upside down by the coronavirus crisis, and covid-19 has shone a dark light on domestic abuse. For some families, things are incredibly hard, trapped at home for most if not all of the day, creating the perfect storm that makes domestic abuse much more likely. I welcome the Government’s recently launched domestic abuse campaign, You Are Not Alone, as part of their corona emergency response.

    When we talk about domestic abuse, we generally think about adults. However, children and young people are often the hidden victims of domestic abuse, simply considered to be witnesses and not directly affected. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Barnardo’s for the help it has provided me with preparing for this speech. It is an outstanding charity, one among many, whose phone line and policy work help thousands of children and young people experiencing domestic abuse directly or indirectly. It is estimated that one in five children aged under 18 experience domestic abuse at some point in their childhood. Three quarters of Barnardo’s frontline staff are working with children impacted by domestic abuse.

    The damage and devastating impact that witnessing domestic abuse can do to a child’s development, their educational attainment and their long-term mental health can have a lasting effect on their life. It affects their ability to form happy, healthy relationships, and often leaves them trapped in a lifelong cycle of violence, either as a victim or even as an abuser themselves. Can you imagine the effect on a child who has had to endure ​watching and listening to a parent, often a mother, being screamed at, beaten, their every moment controlled by their abuser, day in and night out, for many, many years? Imagine growing up in a home that is meant to be your sanctuary—your safety net—where every morning you wake up and dread going downstairs, not knowing whether a wrong word or look will start the abuse off again.

    I would like to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, the broadcaster and journalist Charlie Webster, who is a domestic abuse survivor herself. She has told me her story of the systematic physical, emotional and coercive abuse that she suffered from the age of seven at the hands of her stepfather. It is hard to believe that she is still alive when you hear her story. She told me last week that she is convinced that if her abuse occurred today, during lockdown, she and her mum would not have survived. It is Charlie’s experience of Barnardo’s policy work that has led me to conclude that a desperately needed amendment to this Bill is required if we are going to help children through the trauma of growing up in a domestic abuse home.

    The Government have added a welcome clause, clause 53, putting a duty on public authorities to ensure support for victims who live in safe accommodation, usually a refuge. My fear is that, as currently drafted, the Bill risks creating a two-tier system, helping those in supported accommodation, but not those still at home, and we already know that the majority of adults and child victims remain in their family home or elsewhere in the community. It is therefore vital that we fix this anomaly in the Bill so that all victims of domestic abuse can expect and receive the support they need to recover from harm and move on with their lives. I hope that Ministers will accept that clause 53 should be amended. Domestic abuse does not discriminate and neither should the law.

    I commend the Second Reading of the Domestic Abuse Bill, and I pray that when it finally does become law, it will lead to a better understanding of domestic abuse among the public and public agencies, and that it will ensure that no vulnerable child or adult will be left to suffer.