(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2H to Commons Amendment 2F and its Amendment 2J to Commons Amendment 2G, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2K to Commons Amendment 2F and Amendment 2L to Commons Amendment 2G in lieu.
“(d) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must comply with the duty in subsection (A1)(a) and (b) within 6 months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed.””
“(c) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must comply with the duty in subsection (A1) within 6 months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed.””
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motion B. We have had just over 18 months in both Houses on this Bill. I very much hope that we are now debating the Crime and Policing Bill for the very last time. Your Lordships’ House has quite properly discharged its role as a revising Chamber on a number of occasions. We have now asked the Commons to consider and reconsider the two outstanding issues before us today not once, not twice but on three occasions. The Commons, as is its right, made its views perfectly clear on 14 April, 20 April and 22 April. On each occasion it has rejected the Lords amendments by majorities exceeding 100. I suggest, respectfully, to your Lordships’ House that the time has come to heed the clearly and repeatedly expressed views of the elected House.
I know the issue of fixed penalty notices has been one of importance, and I have listened very carefully to the well-made arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Indeed, we have acknowledged some of the concerns he has raised about the actions of some contractors. We have now enshrined in the Bill a requirement to issue statutory guidance about the use of fixed penalty notices to enforce public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. We are also committed, thanks again to pressure from the noble Lord and others, to issuing such guidance within six months of Royal Assent, and I have already said I will share the guidance with the noble Lord before it is issued.
I know the noble Lord is disappointed we have not gone further, but we have concerns that his amendments would, effectively, terminate the legitimate use of private contractors to enforce anti-social behaviour civil orders, to the detriment of the safety and security of local communities who want to see effective action to tackle anti-social behaviour. I also welcome the fact that, when the Bill was again debated in the Commons last Wednesday, Max Wilkinson, speaking for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, indicated that he would not press the issue further. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will do today, but I hope he would similarly now agree to be content and agree Motion A.
Turning to proscription of the IRGC, we have had several opportunities to discuss the stall on this matter, and there is little more to be said. I have been very clear that Amendment 439 is not one the Government can accept, but I have also been very clear that this Government have and will continue to take strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account by sanctioning Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC, as well as placing Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Indeed, the Prime Minister reiterated last week that we are also committed to introduce legislation to provide for a proscription-like power to address the threat of hostile activity posed by the state and state-linked bodies. Work on this legislation is well under way and, without pre-empting the King’s Speech, your Lordships can expect to see more soon.
The Commons has now endorsed the Government’s position in voting to reject the Lords amendment on three separate occasions over the past two weeks. There can be no doubt about where the elected House stands on this issue, and I respectfully submit that there is nothing to be gained from sending the amendment back to the Commons. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the whole House will agree to Motion B and, in doing so, I also hope that he will recognise that the Government have a strong view on the situation in Iran and the Iranian regime, which I have outlined. With those comments, I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to respond to the Government’s Motion A regarding the issuing of fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. I thank the Minister for all his efforts. Throughout this process, he has demonstrated good will but, without making any great classical allusions, this has felt very much like pushing a boulder uphill. At each stage of the Bill’s passage, we have had to push the Government incredibly hard to recognise the sheer scale of the problem regarding the cowboy enforcement economy that has been preying on the public. However, I am pleased to say that this persistence has finally paid off, and genuine progress has been made.
By accepting the Government’s latest amendment today, we are securing the necessary safeguards, through statutory guidance which must be delivered within six months of Royal Assent, to make sure that local authorities cannot incentivise private contractors to fine for the breach of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. For far too long, the system has allowed a revenue collection industry to masquerade as justice, with private companies retaining the vast majority of fine income and aggressively targeting people for anodyne actions. With this amendment now in place, our citizens will be much better protected against the cowboys who have sought to abuse these enforcement powers for their own financial gain.
While the journey to get here has required relentless pressure from these Benches and across the House—and I sincerely thank the Conservative Benches for their solid support throughout—the outcome is a significant victory for fairness and proportionality in our justice system, and I am content, therefore, to accept the Government’s latest amendment.
I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government will share the draft statutory guidance before it is issued. We know roughly what wording the Home Office has in mind—that of the Defra guidance on litter—but the consultation process on the new guidance will be important. I hope that the Minister can doubly assure us that the Home Office will consult not only with local government but with those who have been instrumental in raising this fining-for-profit issue during the passage of the Bill, such as myself and the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life, formerly the Manifesto Club.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, despite everything that the Minister has said on proscription of the IRGC, we are now in something of an Alice in Wonderland world. The Prime Minister has told the media in recent days that the Government propose to introduce further legislation to address state threats. Such legislation has been reported by the BBC, among others, as enabling the Government to ban state-related organisations such as the IRGC. The Prime Minister has said that the King’s Speech next month will commit to such legislation. Yet the Terrorism Act already permits such a ban: Section 1(4) states that terrorist action includes action outside the UK; the public affected includes the public of a country outside the UK; and the Government affected means the Government of another country as well as the Government of the UK. Therefore, terrorism is specifically international. Section 3, as we know, permits the proscription of terrorist organisations without limiting them to UK organisations or UK terrorism.
The Government know this. As we heard last week, the Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, and the present Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper—herself a former Home Secretary—specifically called for proscription of the IRGC while in opposition, just as we on these Benches have consistently called for it. Nobody but nobody has said that there has been no power to proscribe the IRGC because it is state-related.
The EU, led by France and Italy, as well as Australia, the United States, Canada and several of the Gulf states, have all proscribed the IRGC. Yet the Government, despite previous Labour policy, have promised Parliament only an anodyne statement about
“the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers under Section 3”.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, called that patronising. It is worse than that. Despite their previous policy, the Government rely only on the repeated mantra that they will not give a running commentary on decisions on proscription.
The IRGC is connected, on very substantial evidence, not only to the appalling oppression and murder of protesters in Iran in December and January, but to multiple acts of terrorism in the UK and abroad. There are clear links with antisemitic attacks here and elsewhere in Europe and the world, including on synagogues. The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre, responsible for monitoring and assisting international shipping, has reported on large numbers of attacks on cargo ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, which are carried out by the IRGC or connected entities.
We recognise, of course, that the Government have a strong view on the Iranian regime, as the Minister rightly said, yet they have said to Parliament that we are not entitled to an explanation of why the IRGC is not to be proscribed but must wait for further legislation targeted at state-related organisations for such proscription. Yet, if indeed the new legislation is to involve the implementation of the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, in his recent report updated in January, that was aimed at improving legislation on state threats under the National Security Act and the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act. For the proscription of the IRGC under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act, such new legislation is unnecessary and a red herring.
We should continue to demand a proper and timely explanation of what the Government intend to do and when, subject, we agree of course, to the provision of confidential information being restricted to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We support the Conservative Motion B1, and if the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will vote for his Motion.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the House should take account of two factors. My understanding of the advice from the much-respected Jonathan Hall, the Government’s adviser on terrorism legislation, is that specific new legislation is required to ensure that malign state actors can be proscribed and dealt with.
Secondly, the House should take account of the fact that, on a visit to Kenton synagogue last Thursday—one of the synagogues that has been subjected to a disgraceful firebomb attack—the Prime Minister gave what I understand to be a very clear commitment:
“We go into a new session in a few weeks’ time, and we’ll bring that legislation forward”.
It is true that the Prime Minister has not specifically committed to proscribe the IRGC, but my understanding is that that is because the Government never give advance notice of who they are going to proscribe. If the Government do not carry out these commitments, do not bring forward legislation and do not implement it very speedily, I would regard that as a very serious breach of faith and this House will no doubt have much to say about it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we return to this highly important matter once again. I know that the Government will not appreciate this, but it is our duty in this House to hold them to account for their promises.
When in opposition, the Labour Party committed to proscribing the IRGC; it has now voted against this six times. On Wednesday, the Minister for Policing and Crime, Sarah Jones, said that
“we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords’ amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/26; col. 398.]
I take particular exception to this. It is wrong and entirely incorrect to claim that this House is somehow acting inappropriately. There is nothing out of the ordinary for this House to insist on an issue as important as this. I remind the Minister how many rounds of ping-pong we had on the safety of Rwanda Bill: this House sent the Bill back to the Commons five times. That is not a criticism but a fact: it is this House’s right to do so. It is not acceptable to have Ministers in this Government seeking to delegitimise the important work of this House. I hope the Government will reflect on that.
There has been a consistent thread of criticism of this amendment from the Government, which I would like to address. Last week, the Minister said
“the Government do not provide a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription”,—[Official Report, 22/4/26; col. 692.]
but this completely misunderstands the argument. I am not asking the Minister to give a “running commentary” on proscription nor am I asking the Government to air sensitive information in public. All I am asking is for the Government to get on with it and proscribe the IRGC. The Minister does not need to provide a running commentary; he just needs to agree the amendment.
I note that there has been some progress now. The Prime Minister said on Friday that the Government will move to proscribe the IRGC in the new Session, so it seems that he is now willing to give us a running commentary on organisations being considered for proscription. That is good news—providing he remains in post, of course.
I welcome that the Government have finally remembered the promises they made in opposition. It is testament to the determined campaigning on this matter from organisations around the country and opposition parties in this Parliament. However, why has it taken the Government so long? It is an incomprehensible position. They have had ample opportunity, during the passage of the Bill, simply to say what the Prime Minister said on Friday. This is disappointing. Regardless of that, the Government have said that they will now move to proscribe the IRGC, and all that remains is to press the Minister on timelines. This cannot wait for months and months; we are all united in our support for this.
I have sought assurance on when the Government will bring forward the legislation. Unfortunately, they have refused to tell us when. This is completely unacceptable at a time when we need strong and decisive leadership in the national interest. We have a Government and a Prime Minister who take months to make a decision and, once they have made that decision, then cannot commit to even a basic deadline. We have seen this time and time again with the Government: refusal to give Parliament even the most basic of assurances on when they will do things that they have promised to do. It is time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and get on with the promises they made. It is with some trepidation that I accept what the Minister said, but he should be sure that we will hold the Government to account.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion or not.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is very gracious. I will keep an eye out for it.
I am pleased that we have made some progress. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his pragmatic approach. I know that he would have liked the Government to go further on the issue of fixed penalty notices. I know he will be holding me to account on the question of statutory guidance and monitoring. But we have achieved some form of settlement and I am grateful to him for agreeing that today.
On the question of proscription, as I said, I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion, but I say to him that the elected House has made its views known by significant majorities on a number of occasions now. It has made its views known, supporting the argument that I have deployed in this House: that we do not give a running commentary on proscription. I point to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said: the Prime Minister said last week that the Government understand the need for action, the second Session starts very shortly, and we will be looking to bring forward this legislation as soon as we can. By “this legislation” he does not mean a running commentary on proscription under the powers in the 2000 Act; he means legislation on the potential for a revised state threats proscription-like regime, as recommended by Jonathan Fisher KC—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I got my Fishers and Halls mixed up. It was recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in his recent report to the Government.
We cannot anticipate what the King’s Speech will say, but I repeat to the noble Lord, for clarity, that the Prime Minister said the Government understand the need for action, the second Session starts very shortly and we are looking to bring legislation forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, made a strong case for proscription. But I put to him that the Government have made their view clear. They will share information on state threats with the ISC in due course, but I will not comment on what the Government will do on proscription according to a random deadline set by a Motion in this House without the full facts being examined in a public way.
In the past, on organisations proposed for proscription, we have tabled Motions in both Houses of Parliament and argued why we wanted to table those Motions. We have done that without giving prior knowledge to the organisations we are seeking to proscribe. We have done that under the 2000 Act.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said what he said on the visit to the synagogue last week. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will give the Government the opportunity to fulfil that, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we will be held to account on an article of faith in relation to what the Prime Minister said. But I cannot today, in this House, give either an agreement to proscribe the IRGC within the timescale that the noble Lord has put in his Motion, nor can I pre-empt the King’s Speech later next month, because that is what the King’s Speech is for. So I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will not press his Motion.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 439E and 439F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Davies of Gower
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 439E and 439F and do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the opposition parties for their support, particularly the Liberal Democrats for their unswerving support and appreciation of the seriousness of the issue. I would have preferred to have something more positive from the Minister, and we will hold the Government to account, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, as we are still awaiting the Minister for the next business—we moved a little faster than we were expecting—we will adjourn during pleasure for five minutes, until the Minister arrives.