Health Bill

Debate between Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con) [R]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 29 and other amendments in this group. I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, but it is a mixed one. That is not a reflection on the noble Baroness but a reflection of my disbelief that we are even having to raise this crucial issue. But raise it we must. I thank the noble Baroness, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Austin of Dudley, for giving your Lordships’ Committee the opportunity to consider it.

I say “disbelief” because I cannot imagine that those noble Lords who helped pass Labour’s Race Relations Act could ever have envisaged that, 61 years later, we should be debating whether it is necessary for the Government to take measures to counter the shocking anti-Jewish racism that scars our NHS, a founding principle of which is surely equality. As a lifelong patient who owes so much to the NHS, I would say that, for such a treasured institution to apply that principle in practice, the provision of healthcare must be made in an environment in which all feel safe and mutually respected, patients and staff alike. The reason why I believe this amendment is essential is that, sadly, some feel neither, on account of their Jewish identity.

I would hope that it is generally recognised that racism is wrong. What I am less sure about is that antisemitism is recognised as racism. Adolf Hitler was very clear: his virulent hatred of Jewish people was racist. Indeed, he was so passionate about his racism that he made it a central tenet of the Nazi creed, which, sadly, as we all know, underpinned and informed the Holocaust. Jews were to be murdered for the crime of being Jewish. It therefore strikes me as bizarre that anyone could either delude themselves or seek to delude someone else—on social media, for example—that antisemitism or anti-Zionism is somehow not racist. This is simply factually incorrect, which is why the recommendations made in the review of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the amendments in this group, are so important.

I wonder whether the Minister, in her response, can assure the Committee that the third aspect of training mentioned in the amendment—that of responding to antisemitism—will include reference to historical facts, such as: the fact that the Jewish people have a historical claim to the land of Israel; that Israel has a long, if broken, history; that biblical records about, for example, the construction of the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, which is believed to have existed between the 10th and 6th centuries BC, bear testimony to this; that the Jews were dispersed from their homeland by the Romans almost 2,000 years ago; that perhaps no other race has been subjected to such extreme prejudice and barbaric persecution in the history of humanity; and that, given the history of how the Jewish people have been treated, Israel has learned that there is only one country on which it can rely to defend its interests—most recently in the face of the egregious fabrication that the tragedy of Gaza is a genocide—and that is Israel. In short, can the Minister assure the Committee that any training on the need to respond, and on how to respond, to antisemitism and other forms of racism will be informed by, not divorced from, factual historical context?

In conclusion, there is another reason why I support this group of amendments. I discovered only after he had passed away that my childhood orthopaedic consultant, who played such a vital part in optimising my life chances, fled for his life on the last Kindertransport to leave Prague before the Nazis closed the borders in June 1939. Records show that the family members he left behind were murdered at Auschwitz only 82 years ago—within the lifetime of some Members of your Lordships’ House. Hanuš Weisl lived with that memory for the rest of his life. I am not Jewish, but for me his memory will always be a blessing. It is in recognition of the debt I owe to him, and indeed that I believe many of us owe to members of our wonderful Jewish community—particularly those who have dedicated their skills and their lives to the NHS—that I support this important group of amendments. I hope the Government will give it the careful consideration it deserves.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the proposed new clause in my Amendment 279C would require statutory regulators of health and care professions to remove from their professional registers any practitioner found to have engaged in antisemitic behaviour or speech, as defined in my amendment. It would also make clear that removal from the register is a mandatory sanction and cannot be replaced by a lesser penalty.

The amendment is founded upon a simple principle: medicine depends upon trust. Every day, patients place themselves in the hands of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. They disclose intimate details of their lives. They place themselves in vulnerable situations. They trust that they will be treated fairly, equally and without prejudice, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or beliefs.

That trust is not optional; it is fundamental to the practice of medicine. If patients lose confidence that they will be treated impartially, the doctor-patient relationship is damaged. If an entire community begins to doubt that healthcare professionals regard it as deserving of equal dignity and respect, confidence in the healthcare system itself is undermined. That is why racism has no place in medicine. That is why antisemitism has no place in medicine. That is why this amendment is necessary.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 346C, I welcome the other amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl of Dulwich.

Amendment 346C is a modest and reasonable amendment, which would do exactly what it says on the tin. It would require the Home Secretary to institute

“a review assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences in section 106”.

The review, which must be published within a year of that section coming into force, would recommend any changes to the law which the review determines may be necessary. The rationale for this amendment is similarly simple: it seeks to probe how the law could be changed to ensure that companies which contract for the services of delivery cyclists bear some responsibility for the conduct of those cyclists on the road.

Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I approach this issue from the perspective of a severely disabled person, whose condition makes me extremely vulnerable to the impact—and I use the term advisedly to mean the actual physical impact—of being hit by an individual riding one of these e-bikes in, to use the legislative terminology, a “dangerous, careless or inconsiderate” way. To put it bluntly, the impact would be catastrophic; I would not expect to survive. So I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who said on day six of Committee that you take your life in your hands when you cross some roads in central London. I do so, quite literally, every day, on my way to and from your Lordships’ House.

Now I entirely appreciate that whether I live or die is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. It would be a shame if I were killed, but the earth would continue to turn. I know that. Equally, I know that I am just one person. I think of all those people with visual impairments, for example, who literally risk life and limb just stepping outside their front door. So the review should consider the impact on them as well, and not just in terms of their independence, mental health and well-being, all of which will of course bring associated costs for the NHS and social care services, but of their employment prospects. For why would anyone want to risk going to work, given they could end up in hospital before they have even got to the office as a result of being hit by a courier cyclist on an e-bike while they were walking along the pavement or trying to board a bus from one of those so-called floating bus stops?

I cite this group as just one example—and of course there are people with mobility impairments like mine, or simply older people whose reflexes are not as sharp as they once were—to highlight how the dangers presented by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling on e-bikes, particularly by courier and delivery cyclists, are having a far greater impact on our society than we perhaps realise. I would go so far as to say that the effect has been to airbrush out of the bigger social picture whole swathes of society. So while I am not suggesting that an assessment of impact should be disability-exclusive, I would argue that such an impact alone merits a review.

I say to the Minister that I am not laying the blame at the door of Government per se. The Member’s explanatory statement accompanying the amendment refers to the companies which contract the services of delivery cyclists bearing

“some responsibility for the conduct of these cyclists”—

the point being that the responsibility is shared. But none of us, either in Parliament or the Government, can deny that we also share responsibility for addressing the problem; in our case, by providing the most effective legislative framework to facilitate the change we all want to see—safer streets.

I am reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said on day six in Committee, about us having made a “huge strategic mistake” by not factoring in the need for safety from the outset when these e-bikes were introduced. I agree with him. Sadly, some people, especially those in the Department for Transport, appear not to. They—and I dare say they are non-disabled and a bit slow on the uptake, bless them, so we need to make allowances—still do not seem to have woken up to the fact that this experiment has gone badly wrong.

That needs to be the starting point of the review. There must be a recognition—a fact which I sense the Minister implicitly acknowledges—that there is a significant and growing problem, which cannot simply be dismissed by officialdom’s obtuse obfuscation of, “Well, we are where we are”, because if we do not recognise that where we are is bad then we cannot move on.

Lime, the other e-bike hiring companies and companies such as Just Eat deserve to be in the dock and not in the saddle when it comes to this review. Yes, they will be part of the solution, but right now they are doing very nicely thank you very much from being a big part of the problem. They cannot be allowed to set or influence the review’s terms of reference or to sit on the review panel. That should be done by those most affected by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, not by those whose irresponsible indifference means they are profiting from putting people’s lives at risk.

In conclusion, I believe that the case for a review is compelling. As my noble friend Lady Stowell said on day six in Committee, courier delivery service e-bike users are “the worst perpetrators”. It is time we reviewed the situation. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 416K supports a targeted, enforceable measure that holds delivery platforms to account where their operational model and oversight failures contribute to dangerous cycling on our streets. This is not about blame for individual riders alone; it is about closing a regulatory gap so that companies that profit from rapid, app-driven deliveries also carry responsibility for foreseeable harms linked to their business models and practices.

If noble Lords want a bit more excitement in their lives than the excitement of participating in this debate then I invite them to accompany me, when we rise tonight, to walk along Millbank, Horseferry Road and Marsham Street, past the Home Office. The excitement will come from them dodging out of the way of dozens of Deliveroo couriers belting along the pavements delivering to the thousands of flats in this area.

Even more excitement may come when I manage to confront one of these riders and we have an exchange of views, but not usually a meeting of minds. When I see them belting along the pavement, I drive straight for them. My chair is heavier than theirs, so they are the ones who are forced to dodge out of the way. When I manage to stop one on those massive, fat tyre, illegal bikes and speak to them, I can say with all honesty that every single one I have seen is a recent arrival to this country. Half do not speak English and do not know the law on riding killer bikes on the pavement. The other half do know and tell me to go away sexually, that they will do what they like, and who will stop them.

If I had said that a month ago, I might have been accused of racist comments, but on 4 December this year, the Home Office issued a press release to say that, in targeted action, it and the police had arrested 171 food delivery couriers for criminal activity, and 60 of them were illegal migrants facing deportation. The Home Office press release said:

“It comes as Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been targeting people working unlawfully in the ‘gig economy’. Border Security Minister Alex Norris has also met representatives from food-delivery firms to encourage them to do more to tackle the issue—such as using facial recognition checks to prevent riders sharing their identities with people who do not have permission to take up work in the UK. Norris said that November’s action ought to ‘send a clear message: if you are working illegally in this country, you will be arrested and removed’. He added: ‘We are tightening the law to clamp down on illegal working in the delivery sector to root out this criminality from our communities’”.


Good on you, Minister, and good on the Home Office—they have provided proof of what I have encountered every night for the past two years on the streets of Westminster, within hundreds of yards of this building. Good luck to you in trying to send them back to Eritrea, Somalia or wherever, because there is bound to be some immigration judge who will block you and cite bogus human rights reasons for why they cannot be deported. But that is your problem and not for today.

My amendment supplements what Minister Norris was doing. He exhorted the food delivery companies to do more to tackle the issue. My proposed new clause would give the police the power to penalise the food delivery companies financially, since money is the only thing that will make them change.