Antisocial Behaviour

Debate between John Lamont and John Hayes

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate, and I thank all 17 right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom who have taken part in it.

We all recognise the descriptions and anecdotes we have heard today. Antisocial behaviour is a widespread issue that we all face: the noise from fireworks, the glance over the shoulder on the walk home, the quiet bus journey spent trying not to attract attention—for victims and witnesses alike, it inspires nothing but stress and fear. It stops pensioners walking to the shops, bus drivers feeling safe in their cabs and families feeling secure in their own homes. As the dark nights creep in, it erodes people’s confidence in their communities and in this Government’s ability to protect them.

The latest crime survey for England and Wales estimates that 41.4% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour last year, up from 36.7% the year before. Behind those figures are real people who need to see real change, not simply another promise. I am sure that the Government will point to the Crime and Policing Act, much of which we supported, and to the respect orders introduced last month—a number of Members have mentioned those—but legislation is only the starting point. The test is whether people will notice any reduction in the chaos on their streets. I am not confident that that change will be felt.

We all want reassurances that the Government have this problem in hand, but reported cases of antisocial behaviour continue to rise, and with police officer numbers falling, people rightly question how the Government will use the Act’s new antisocial behaviour data powers to help forces target their already stretched resources more effectively. How will the Government effect change without the officers to enforce it?

Police numbers have been in decline since the Government took office. At the same time, the Government have facilitated the early release of prisoners. The Conservative party has committed to providing 10,000 more police officers and 200,000 additional hotspot patrols, because we recognise that respect orders alone can mean something only if there are officers trained and ready to use them.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a strong point about police resources and how they are allocated to trouble spots. There is also the issue of police morale. When the police are burdened by bureaucracy and cannot act decisively and quickly, they feel inhibited in taking the action the public expect them to. Does he agree that we need to look at a new protocol for this kind of policing, driven by Government and implemented locally, that would mean that criminals are caught and punished and that the public feel safer?

Progression of Bills through Parliament

Debate between John Lamont and John Hayes

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), my colleague on the Petitions Committee, for introducing the debate on behalf of the Committee and the petitioner. I thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the e-petition. Whatever view Members take on the arguments advanced in the petition, the number of signatures demonstrates the strength of feeling on this issue and the importance of Parliament’s engaging seriously with those concerns. I also thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. We have heard thoughtful and strongly held views from across the House, reflecting both the significance of the legislation that prompted the petition and the wider constitutional questions now before us.

It is important to recognise that the petition arose from concerns about the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a private member’s Bill. However, today’s debate ultimately is not about the merits of assisted dying; it is about parliamentary process. Specifically, it is about whether Parliament should change the way that it approaches legislation where a private Member’s Bill has secured support from MPs. The petition argues, in essence, that where a private Member’s Bill has support from MPs and the public, the Government should do everything within their power to ensure that it has sufficient time to complete all its parliamentary stages.

It is sometimes overlooked that that is not simply a request for more parliamentary time. It is effectively a request for a new constitutional principle: that where the concepts underlying a private Member’s Bill have secured sufficient public support and a Commons majority, the Government should take active steps to ensure the Bill’s passage despite significant unresolved issues. That would represent a significant departure from our existing constitutional arrangements, under which scrutiny, amendment and even failure remain possible outcomes of the legislative process. I do not believe that public support, however significant—particularly as measured by polls, rather than at the ballot box—can be a substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament’s role is not simply to facilitate legislation but to examine it, challenge it and improve it before it becomes law.

The petition also raises questions about the role of the House of Lords. It is important that we approach those questions accurately. Some have suggested that the Lords somehow acted improperly by failing to return the Bill Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to the Commons. That assertion is not supported by the constitutional authorities.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I have not participated in the debate because I was not able to be here at the beginning, but I heard many of the speeches. In a number of them, it was suggested that the Bill received unusual levels of consideration. That is simply not so. Many of us have been in this House for a very long time and have seen legislation that has had pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses, and independent reports commissioned on it, long before Second Reading. This Bill had none of that.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s insight from his many years of experience in this place. We are not a unicameral system. As the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) stated in her powerful speech, Parliament consists of three separate parts: the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Crown. The House of Lords is independent and shares the task of making and shaping laws. The House of Lords Constitution Committee made it clear that it was constitutionally appropriate for the Lords to scrutinise, amend or reject the Bill, and the Hansard Society similarly confirmed that the Lords

“has the authority to reject, delay, or otherwise block”

legislation of its kind.