Lords Chamber

Wednesday 25th February 2026

(began 1 hour, 44 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:06
None Portrait Oral questions: AI Security Institute’s research into threats to economic stability arising from changes in the labour market
-

First First Oral First Oral Question First Oral Question Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town.
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
None Portrait Oral questions: Which cyclist safety measures for cyclists are the most effective for reducing accidents and injuries
-

Second Oral Question Lord Krebs. standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Discussions with the government of Pakistan regarding the imprisonment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan
-

Fourth Oral Question Baroness Alexander of Cleveden.
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:53
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
The question is this bill do now pass? pass? >> My Lords, while this was emergency legislation, we have had detailed and constructive debates detailed and constructive debates on prioritisation. We have also had the opportunity to debate some of the deeper issues with the supply of medical speciality training of medical speciality training places, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness Vere Minister for her letter. We will continue to hold the government to account on the delivery of these places over the coming years.

As we have said previously. The bill is not a complete solution to the problem, something which the noble Lady, the Minister, graciously acknowledged. We accept that it is a step forward now. During our debates, we touched on a number of issues, including whether UK citizens who are graduates of UK medical schools should be given a first priority. We discussed the issue of international medical graduates who chose to come to contribute to the UK system of healthcare rather than go to another country, but who may now find themselves at the back of the queue.

We also discussed graduates of overseas branches of UK medical schools, some of which follow the same curriculum as UK medical schools, and whether some could be granted so-called grandfather rights. We also pressed for secondary legislation to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Now we understand why the government has come to its position, and why Ministers have not been able to take action on these points with this emergency legislation. However, given more time, I hope Ministers will continue their work to resolve these concerns, which were eloquently set out by a number of noble Lords from all benches.

My Lords, there was also some debate about whether this was really emergency legislation, and whether in reality it was simply giving the Secretary of State a bargaining chip in negotiations with the BMA. Now, that may be no bad thing in itself, but the question remains of whether emergency legislation should be used to give Ministers bargaining chips. Before I sit down, I would like to thank the Minister and the officials for all their engagement throughout the Bill and as His Majesty's loyal opposition, we look forward to working closely with the noble Lady, the Minister, as the government presses ahead with implementation of this bill.
15:55
Baroness Gerada Portrait Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)
-
-
I know it's not normal to speak >> I know it's not normal to speak at the report states. I'll be very brief. I'd like to thank the Minister and everyone who's worked Minister and everyone who's worked on this bill, but I just want to raise just 1 or 2 anxieties which have already been touched on. I believe that this bill fundamentally challenges one of the principles of what I've always held, which is fairness. I think this is unfair to those international medical graduates who for the last two decades, we've we've entreated them to come.

We've even paid for them to come to this country, to work in hard jobs in places that the UK graduates didn't want to do. And now that we have more people than places, we're basically pulling the rug away from them. We're jeopardising their careers, their futures, their families and their visas. I also think it's unfair to those UK nationals who chose, again in good faith to to study overseas and now have been treated like international medical graduates when they are not.

And finally, my Lords, I think it's unfair to the commitment that the Department of Education has around transnational under and postgraduate education. And this bill, I'm afraid, takes away that commitment and says that we don't really mean what we say. But I look forward to working with Ministers and with officials to see if we can address some what I fear are going to be the unintended and I suspect, intended consequences of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I start firstly by thanking Adam in the Lib Dem office for the help and support and also the support of my good friend Lord Clement-Jones in terms of guiding Clement-Jones in terms of guiding me and helping me navigate the around this bill. As we've heard earlier, this isn't emergency legislation. They are question legislation. They are question marks. Whether they should have been emergency legislation, given the issues that the noble Lord, the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Carmel raised is here.

All I will say to the Minister is that during the course of this I won't. I would like to put on record my thanks for your engagement in terms of not only finding time to speak to us individually before this bill arrived here, but also since and even on the very last day beginning of this week, all I will say is there's many issues that were raised during the passage of this bill. And I'm you're right to point out that this is not the silver bullet that's going to deal with the workforce issue.

So all I will say to the Minister is that I and my colleagues from this side of the House will be keeping a close eye on the progress of this bill, particularly when it comes to the issue of Queen Mary University and the medical school in Malaysia linked to Newcastle University. But like you say, there is an issue here. The government has now come forward with a possible solution. We did have some alternatives, but clearly in a democracy we didn't win on this occasion.

So we wish this bill well. And more importantly, those students that have been watching our debates, I have been watching our debates, I wish every one of those all the success in their future careers.
15:58
15:59
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
sorry I wasn't ready for. Of course it's worth waiting for. My Lords, this amendment would change the legal test for imposing a respect order, requiring the court to consider this step necessary and proportionate, and not merely just inconvenient, in preventing a person from engaging in anti-social behaviour. This small, targeted change ensures the test is more proportionately aligned with the potentially serious consequences of these crazy criminal orders, since breach can result in up to two years imprisonment.

It would also better reflect the government's stated intention that these orders should be used to tackle the most persistent cases of anti-social behaviour, as the noble Lord Lord Pannick noted at committee, these cases would be adequately covered by necessity and proportionate framework. My Lords, the Minister says that under the Human Rights Act, judges must already take necessity and proportionality into account. If that is so, I struggle to see why that very safeguard cannot be placed transparently on the face of the bill.

This is a critical point, given the well documented failures of previous anti-social behaviour powers. The evidence shows that in practice, vague legal tests not only lead to inconsistent decisions, they sometimes deter the courts from using orders. A more rigorous test was also addressed. Concerns about systemic bias, existing anti-social behaviour powers continue to fall more heavily on minority ethnic and other disadvantaged groups without stronger safeguards, this will almost inevitably be repeated by respect orders. Tightening the test is a modest way to reduce that risk, and will provide greater clarity for all concerned judges, counsel and victims, as well as those made subject to these orders.

It also aligns the order much better with the risk assessment duty already outlined in section J1 of clause one. In committee, a number of peers express concern about judicial overreach, particularly with tools so sweeping they can order somebody to do anything described. But the current broad and vague test will do nothing to solve this. In fact, it will make matters worse. The quasi criminal nature of these orders will invite legal challenge causing delay in already backlogged courts, potentially clogging the system with marginal cases while doing little for victims of persistent and ongoing antisocial behaviour.

My Lords are clear necessity and proportionality requirement would sharpen the law, focus efforts on the worst cases and help ensure that respect orders become the tool of choice for serious or repeat anti-social behaviour, rather than just another broad but inconsistently used power added to an already confusing landscape. One final point in committee, we welcome the Home Office plan to pilot these orders, only to be told that the government had decided this was no longer necessary. On that occasion, the Minister informed me, things change.

However, since then things appear to have changed again, with the latest policy paper saying that respect orders will now be piloted before being rolled out nationally. That is obviously very welcome, but I hope that the Minister can reassure the House today that in this matter at least, there will be no further changes. My Lords, one change I do, however, strongly advocate, is that outlined in amendment one, if it sharpens the law, improves enforcement and offers greater protection against injustice for the price of a modest drafting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

alteration, why resist it? I beg to move. Yes. Amendment. Proposed. Clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Proposed. Clause one, page two. Line four. Leave out just and convenient and insert necessary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and proportionate. With everything that's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been said by Baroness Doocey. As I understand the government's position, it accepts that it would position, it accepts that it would not be appropriate to impose such an order unless it is necessary and proportionate. And indeed, that is the test that supplied by the
16:04
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
European Convention on Human Rights. So the only question is whether the So the only question is whether the language of the bill and the act that it will become should reflect the true test. It does seem to me, the true test. It does seem to me, as it seems to Baroness Doocey, that it's highly appropriate, that what is on the face of the legislation should set out what is the true test. This has to be the true test. This has to be applied not just by judges, but by police officers, by local authorities, by communities, and by everyone who is responsible for considering and enforcing this legislation.

So let's put on the face of the bill the true and proper test. proper test.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I. My Lords, I the government, there's a lot in this group. That's the first thing to say. The government are undoubtedly sincere government are undoubtedly sincere in wanting to use this bill to further tackle anti-social behaviour. And certainly such moves will be popular at taking on this blight on communities. However, I blight on communities. However, I think we do have to pause a moment and say that there's already a plethora of tools on the statute books designed to tackle anti-social behaviour, and yet it doesn't seem to be improving.

And this is the group in which we need to ask why? Because perhaps, just perhaps, anti-social behaviour orders and injunctions in all their various guises, from community
16:05
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
penalty notices to public space protection orders, are just not fit for purpose. But instead of for purpose. But instead of tackling this, I fear that the government is taking something of an easy and performative route and an easy and performative route and affording the state even more of the same, a bit more draconian powers with a different label that powers with a different label that is, respect orders. But all of this with little clarity or evidence of with little clarity or evidence of efficacy.

And that's what these amendments in this group are designed to tackle. And by and large, I support them all. I've tabled amendments six that calls for an independent and I stress that word independent. An independent review of existing powers under the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that should be published prior to the commencement of sections one and two of the act. As legislators, we have an obligation for taking responsibility for assessing the impact, the impact of and the evidence about laws that we have made in the past.

Before we duplicate their weaknesses, we need to be able to understand the pros and cons. This review would look at. Solving the evidence gap is extraordinary, that there's a significant gap in and variation in data capture across relative authorities, across ASB, or locally administered in a patchwork of varied use. There is a worrying variation in the types and quality of data collected, the location of that data, and the ability of that data to be extrapolated and shared both internally or with relevant agencies where appropriate.

This is surely a slap across the face of evidence based policy making, because without data, it is just not possible to adequately assess the effectiveness of behaviour orders and to fully understand any trends arising out of their imposition, enforcement or breach, including disproportionate impacts. It is why amendment 24, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, who's not in her place, as I see, requiring the Home Office to publish quarterly data is so important, as well as amendment 12 from the noble Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Doocey calling for an annual report, both positively trying to tackle the lack the limits of availability of evidence of the evidence base, without which I don't know how we can make informed policy decisions.

At present, all the critiques of present behaviour orders are invaluably brought to us from both sporadic academic research from FOI, both research led by the likes of Josie Appleton and her team at the campaign for freedom for Everyday Life and the excellent campaign group justice. But they want their work to become redundant by the government. They want the government and officialdom to do their work instead, because if the Home Office doesn't understand its own legislative tools, because it hasn't got the data, the misery of anti-social behaviour will remain untouched while the statute book grows.

Maybe the noble Lord, the Lord, the Minister will listen. I hope to the front line workers who have to implement and use these orders and reasonably bemoan the lack of proper consultation with those who in real life, understand the Abi regime. And I have noted a government amendment on consultation, which is welcome. But the vast majority of practitioners who justice consulted believe that the new respect orders are unnecessary and replicate flawed laws already available. Only 6% conclude they will improve outcomes for victims.

82% of respondents of the Practitioners Survey have called for the review of the existing 2014 act of existing powers prior to introducing respect orders, and there was unanimous agreement that the government should be addressing problems inherent with existing injunctions and orders before creating more, and that failure to properly consult has meant that opportunities to resolve problems with the way orders operate in practice, not on paper, and to increase their effectiveness that those opportunities are missed. Surely the noble Lord, the Minister, will want and feel the need to understand why research shows a significant proportion of Cpns and PPOs are, for example, being overused for trivial activities such as, I don't know, feeding the birds, honking horns, gathering in groups, idling in your car, or imposed in inappropriate circumstances against too often the homeless and the mentally ill, where the behaviour complained of falls far below the threshold of anti-social behaviour that the public is concerned about, and that the 2014 act envisaged it will be tackling.

And so all that we're asking, I think, in these amendments is that the Minister actually look at what's gone wrong so we can improve it. Surely the government is worried about the vastly varied use of existing orders that creates a postcode lottery for victims, and also means British citizens don't know what's allowed from one town to another. Conduct that's totally lawful in Lincoln might be the subject of state sanction in Leeds. Surely such a differential variation in the volume of orders imposed, the type of orders imposed, the conditions imposed, and so on undermines the rule of law that I know this government feels very strongly in support of, and it makes enforcement dependent on the victim's location rather than circumstances, or on the perpetrator's location, rather than the precise precisely how they're behaving badly.

This makes a mockery of all the notion of all of us being equal under the law. And a review would look at these problems and recommend practical solutions. Amendments one and three especially, I think, are important in relation to ensuring the respect orders are only used when necessary and in a proportionate way. And we've already heard about that. I think this is very helpful, particularly in creating a right to appeal. I'm worried that the statutory test and language use were imposing these new respect orders is so broad that rather than capturing the behaviour that is, rather than capturing behaviour that is serious, persistent and persistent in nature, it will, as I've said, criminalise more trivial behaviour that they can be imposed on individuals without their knowledge and most egregiously, can be imposed for an indefinite duration, for example, until further notice.

That's why we need this appeals process. How is it fair or proportionate that an individual who has never been found guilty of an offence is required to comply with serious restrictions on their liberty and personal life indefinitely? Yet someone convicted of an offence by the criminal justice system is at liberty and free of prohibitions once they've reached the end of their defined term of sentence, or even sometimes before these days, there is. This is reminiscent of that stain on our justice system, the abolished and abominable APPG indefinite sentence that has caused such a scandal.

So why would the government now create this new, these new oppressive orders that flout the important principle that individual lives are subject to state interference? They need to know how long the interference will last and when it will end. Finally, I've added my name to amendment seven, an excellent contribution from the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Doocey on fixed penalty notices based on the work of the campaign for Freedom of Everyday Life. This, I really hope, will ring true with any Labour government, because ensuring that those private companies dishing out on the spot fines for anti-social behaviour, doing that for profit, to profit financially is surely something the government offends.

The government's values concerns the anti-social behaviour orders have been corrupted for income generation and commercial purposes and with fines increasing much under this bill, surely that tendency will be turbocharged, I think is something the government will want to tackle because all the orders in clause four being issued at such a low benchmark are actually likely to are defined to those going up. So I'm worried that this will encourage councils to become trigger happy with orders and so on. I'm sure the noble Lord Lord Hanson of Flint in particular, will remember, as I do, the scandal of kingdom security in North Wales in I think it was 2019 when councils including Conway, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Gwynedd and Anglesey outsourced the collection of their on the spot fines to private security group Kingdom, who illustrated that the enforcers could well be seen as being far more antisocial than any behaviour of local residents.

They were supposedly fining them for. A grassroots campaign attracted 8000 plus members to its Facebook page, and led to numerous protests all over North Wales. The security groups wardens were accused of threatening bullying and even stalking residents. North Wales following dog walkers and smokers at a distance just so they could catch them out and find them. They especially targeted the elderly and women and children and 195 year old lady. Her tissue blew from her wheelchair to the ground and she was fined.

Kingdom security don't have their contract, didn't have their contract renewed. But similar practices have proliferated throughout the Abi enforcement world. Such scam like behaviour of fines for profit discredits and trivialises a serious approach to tackling anti-social behaviour, and this is a chance for the government to roll back on this. So I do hope that the noble Lords will call a division on this, and I'll certainly be voting in support of amendment seven if they do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ensure. My Lords, I rise to support the bill tabled in my name. As you all bill tabled in my name. As you all know, I am terrible with the abelian rules we have in this place. Bear with me. This is a small Bear with me. This is a small change that will make a big difference to many residents around the country. I'll try not to the country. I'll try not to rehearse the the arguments I made before, but I will say this.

We now before, but I will say this. We now need to reflect the reality of the housing situation that we have in this country. With the government's mission to build 1.5 million homes, this reality will only become even bigger that many of our housing
16:16
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page