Lords Chamber

Wednesday 22nd April 2026

(began 1 hour, 59 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, that concludes our. >> Questions for today. >> Business of the House. The Lord Privy Seal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Privy Seal. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, the House is Order Paper. My Lords, the House is aware three sitting hereditary peers have received life. Peerages and a further limited number were received. Life peerages in a future list. The purpose of this motion is to allow any existing hereditary peer who has received or will receive a life peerage to take their seat, continue to sit in the House without a full introduction ceremony.

This mirrors the motion moved by the Lord Williams of Mostyn in 1999. As in 1999, the change has the approval of His Majesty the King in terms of practical realities. If this motion is agreed today, any hereditary peer who is granted a life peerage will be required to take the oath and sign the roll to undertake to abide by the code. But the full ceremony of introduction, including robes, the involvement of Garter and supporters and the reading of letters patent will not take place again.

This mirrors the situation from 1999. My Lords, I believe this meets the best interests of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House as a whole, and the individual hereditary peers concerned. I beg to move. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The question is that this. Motion be agreed to. As many of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. This may be an opportunity for those who wish to leave the
15:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
amendments on. >> The Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint. >> My Lords, I beg to move motion A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion A that this House do not insist on its amendment to D to Commons amendment two, B and its amendment amendment two, B and its amendment two E to Commons amendment two C and to agree with the Commons in their amendment to F to Commons amendment two B and amendment two G to Commons amendment two C in lieu. I will also, in a moment, if I may, my Lord, speak to motions B, C, and D before I begin my main remarks.

However, my Lords, may I just say that today marks Stephen Lawrence Day, 33 years to the day since the loss of Stephen and my noble friend Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon is in the chamber today and I want to pay tribute to her and her campaigning activity over those 33 years. I was pleased to join my noble friend earlier today for an event at the King's Trust in Southwark to continue the campaigning work of the Stephen Lawrence Foundation. And today is a really good opportunity for us to remember Stephen, but also to recommit to continue to make a stand against racism in all its forms.

I just wanted to place that on record on behalf of the whole House before we commence the Crime and Policing Bill, which in itself deals with a number of issues which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are important in both combating racism and securing knife crime. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Is that the Commons amendments be now considered? As many of them will say, content contrary, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it motion a Lord Hanson of Flint. My Lords, as I beg to move a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as I beg to move a motion a. And as I said last week, I'm grateful for both the engagement that I've had with the noble Lord Davies of Gower and with the noble Lady Baroness Doocey and the noble Lord Clement-Jones. On these matters. We have had a number of amendments in this group, and I'm pleased that they're all considered now in one group. As I said last week, I do understand the concern, particularly in relation to motion a about the enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour offences where there may be a financial incentive to do so.

However, I remain of the view that it's not appropriate to put in place a blanket ban on the issue of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors. Introducing such a ban would be disproportionate and would significantly weaken enforcement capability. Contracting enforcement to third parties is a common arrangement, and it is for local authorities themselves to ensure the use of powers remains just and proportionate. It is for that reason that the government last week tabled amendments to A to two C in lieu, which would rightly ensure that statutory guidance addresses these very points that noble Lords are concerned about.

Now, I do recognise that the noble Lord Clement-Jones has moved on this and tabled amendments in lieu to ensure that such guidance may not address the need to ensure the proper proportion, ensure proportionality in the use of fixed penalty notices. I therefore hope that he's content with the further government's amendments in lieu that have been tabled amendments two F and two G, which also seek to ensure that any guidance issued must address the issue of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons.

In addition, I've discussed again in discussions with the noble Lord the DEFRA statutory guidance on litter enforcement powers. That guidance includes various entries relating to the need to exercise enforcement powers proportionately. It also addresses the use of contractors. I hope I can give an undertaking to the noble Lord that we will adopt similar language in the guidance to be issued in respect of anti-social behaviour enforcement powers. Under this potential act, we commit to including the passage in the guidance which says, and I would quote from what I intend to include, which will be that we're.

External contractors are used. Private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties. I will also ensure the statutory guidance reminds local councils that contracted agencies are not expected to issue fines, fines purely purely for profits and if they're found to do so, local authorities may take appropriate remedial action, such as revocation, in line with the terms of their contract. I hope that that provides the noble Lord the reassurance not to move motion A one motion B.

As I've said throughout the passage of the bill, again, the government fully agrees with noble Lords on the need to do more to tackle fly tipping and our recently announced Waste Crime Action plan, which I referred to in our last round of ping pong and which was published over the Easter recess, does just that on the amendment. 11. Again, I stress that local authorities already have powers to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe that the vehicle is being used or is about to be used to commit a fly-tipping offence.

This is in addition to the police's general power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its associated codes to seize items as evidence if they believe they're being used in the commission of a criminal offence. Now, the government wants local authorities to use these powers fully to tackle fly tipping. And to that end, again, I've tabled amendments in Lieu Amendments 11 C to 11 F that make it clear that the statutory guidance to be issued to waste authorities in England under clause nine of the Bill must not may include advice to local authorities on exercising their powers, including on the seizure of vehicles.

I'm grateful for the gentle discussion that we've had with the noble Lord on these matters and for the pressure that he's put, and I hope that reassures the noble Lord Davies of Gower on this matter. On motion C My Lords, we return to the issue of must versus May again. And last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Ducey, reiterated her concerns that the police are only required to consult Youth Offending Teams when applying for a youth diversion order. As I mentioned last week, multi-agency engagement will be crucial to the success of these orders, and I want to be clear to the House that youth offending teams are already multi-agency by statute, and they include representatives from health, education, social services and probation, as mandated by the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998.

Youth Offending Teams may also engage with child, adolescent, mental health services, education, inclusion teams, voluntary and community organisations and local early health services. Now I recognise the noble Baroness, Lady Lucy has raised concern about the involvement of parents. I would like to reassure her that engagement with parents or carers is a routine and integral part of the work of youth offending teams, beginning both at assessment stage and continuing through any intervention. This engagement is led by practitioners who are trained to work with families, understand family dynamics and assess what engagement is appropriate, safe and in the child's best interests.

The nature and extent of parental involvement is therefore nuanced and individualised, and I hope that the noble Lady will recognise that it, I don't think, would be right to prescribe a one size fits all process for what could be very often likely complex, varied cases. And the statutory guidance, however, will also provide guidance on multi-agency engagement for orders involving respondents over the age of 18. And taking all of this into account, I'm confident this will cover a broad range of expertise and ensure police take a variety of factors into account before applying for an order.

The government have again committed to issuing statutory guidance, which will set out what the police should take into account in terms of proportionality before applying for an order, and that will include the need to consider alternative interventions. The police will clearly need to take an individualised approach and it will, in my view, not be helpful for the government to set out a prescriptive list of alternatives in the guidance. In addition to this, as I've previously set out, the courts will be required to consider whether an order is necessary or proportionate before granting any order.

And to be clear, the police, as the applicants, will need to provide the necessary evidence to enable courts to make that decision, and this will necessarily involve consideration of what alternative options are available and relevant in each case. Having said all of that, however, and notwithstanding the House of Commons rejecting the Lords amendment by a majority of 233, which was Lords Amendment 342, and interestingly, it was a vote in which the official opposition in the Commons did not vote and abstained.

The government have brought forward amendments three, 42C and 342D in lieu, which make it clear that the statutory guidance will also include guidance to the police on the circumstances where it may be appropriate for police to consult others belong beyond the multi-agency youth services. The police must have due regard to this guidance. In addition, these amendments in lieu make it clear that the guidance must address these matters. In summary, I hope that with these additional resources and again, I'm grateful to the noble Lady for her engagement, that they are acceptable in lieu to the noble Lady.

And we finally come to a motion D now again on motion D, I stress again that it's the long standing position adopted by successive governments, including the previous one, that the government does not provide a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for prescription. Furthermore, deciding whether an organisation needs prescribing requires intensive analysis. And I would suggest to the noble Lord that it's not helpful to suggest that the government should review every organisation linked to the Iranian government within one month of Royal Assent.

Now, I note that the noble Lord has brought forward amendment 439E, which narrows the category of organisations within the scope of the duty. But my point is one of principle and still stands. We cannot reach decisions on prescription to an arbitrary timetable set in stone by statute. Now the government keeps the list of prescribed organisations under close review. We do not comment on whether a specific organisation is being considered for prescription. We continue to take strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account, and I just say to the House that more than 550 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC, are now sanctioned, as well as placing Iran on the newly provided Enhanced Foreign Influence Registration scheme.

The House should not be in any doubt that the government cannot and will not accept amendment four, three, nine or the new Amendment 439E but that is not because we're against any action being taken on the Iranian regime. Contrary, we are strongly opposed to the activities of the Iranian regime and have taken steps to do that. As your Lordships House has insisted on amendment 439 for a second time. We have, however, brought forward amendments four, three, nine C and 439D in lieu, principally to keep the parliamentary process going.

But I hope that they will also aid understanding of the prescription procedure in terms. The amendment will require the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent. A statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the powers under section three of the 2000 act, which gives powers for the government to prescribe organisations. I understand you know the points that the noble Lord has made. I can't agree with him.

I would ask him to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this matter. But in the meantime, my Lords, I beg to move the amendments motions in my name.
16:05
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that motion A, B agree to motion A one Lord agree to motion A one Lord Clement-Jones I beg to move motion. >> A1 as an amendment to motion A at end insert and do propose at end insert and do propose amendment two H as an amendment to amendment two F and amendment two J as an amendment to amendment two G. My Lords, before I speak to the motion, can I thank the Minister for reminding us of the anniversary of the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence, and can I join with him in his tribute to the noble Baroness Lawrence and.

And join these benches with his commitment to combating racism in all its forms? My Lords, while I welcome the fact that the government has acknowledged the widespread concern over how these powers are enforced, I must express my profound disappointment that they have chosen again to strip out a robust amendment passed by this House only last Thursday, which would have implemented a strict statutory ban on fining for profit. The government's replacement amendment, under motion A is simply too weak, offering only that the Secretary of State must issue guidance.

In recent days. The Minister and I do thank him for his engagement, has sought to reassure me that this will be sufficient because the Home Office intends to draw directly on the recently published DEFRA statutory guidance on litter enforcement to update the anti-social behaviour guidance. My Lords, incorporating the language of the DEFRA guidance will not solve this problem. If we look at that DEFRA guidance, it states that private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties.

As Josie Appleton, the director of the campaign for Freedom and Everyday Life, who have done so much to highlight the problems with the way that fines are collected for Pspos and cpns, has rightly pointed out to me, relying on this guidance framework is fundamentally flawed. She's highlighted three crucial points that explain why primary legislation is vastly preferable. First, if the government genuinely intends to do as they say and stop this cowboy practice, then they should have absolutely nothing to fear from passing my amendment in primary legislation.

Secondly, she rightly asks whether the government is actually going to ban payment per fine and the use of tacit or explicit targets, or whether they will simply fudge the issue with fine words about proportionality. The DEFRA guidance relies on the permissive word should, rather than a legally binding must, leaving the door wide open for these lucrative contracts to continue. Third, and perhaps most importantly, what is the enforcement mechanism for this guidance? As Miss Appleton asks, would somebody be able to appeal an FPN a fixed penalty notice on the basis that it was issued under payment per fine arrangements? The answer is no to mean something the law needs to have teeth.

Guidance is not strictly legally binding. Local authorities and private agencies simply have a duty to have regard to it. My Lords, we cannot regulate a multi-million pound industry built on aggressive, incentivised ticketing by politely suggesting what they should do in non-binding guidance. The scale of this issue is immense. The surge in penalties is overwhelmingly driven by the 31 councils that employ private companies, who issued a staggering 75.7% of all pspo penalties last year, with the government pushing ahead to increase the maximum fine for these breaches by 400% from £100 to £500.

This industry is about to be supercharged. We cannot allow a system that financially incentivise incentivises the punishment of our citizens to masquerade as justice, and that's why I hope the House will fully support motion A1 today. Motion A1 puts the necessary teeth into the government's proposals. It ensures that the guidance must explicitly set out how authorised persons can be disincentivized from issuing fixed penalty notices for the purpose of generating any direct or indirect financial benefit. And, crucially, it provides a real enforcement mechanism by stating in the Bill that any person found to be in breach of this guidance may have their designation revoked by the local by the relevant local authority.

And my Lords, if we're to rely on guidance based frameworks, its prohibition on financial incentives must be explicit and there must be statutory consequences for breaching it. My Lords, I urge the House to support motion A1.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion A be agreed to since when motion A be agreed to since when motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A at the end to insert the words printed on the Marshalled List. The question, Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords. I rise to speak to motion C1 and thank the. Minister for moving amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister for moving amendment three, 42C and D. I'd also like to thank the Minister and his officials for the time they've
16:10
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
spent with me during the passage of the Bill. I am pleased that the government has taken on board a government has taken on board a number of the concerns I have raised. Amendment 342C now ensures raised. Amendment 342C now ensures the guidance is mandatory. The police must have due regard to it police must have due regard to it and it must address alternative interventions. The Minister has also confirmed that police will be also confirmed that police will be required to present evidence to the court on what alternatives were tried or considered, and has also provided helpful clarity on the broader consultation process beyond Youth Offending Teams.

These are important technical steps towards the informed justice I have sought. However, it's a matter of regret that the government did not feel able to go further. We debate these powers in the immediate wake of the Southport inquiry, where Sir Adrian Fulford identified a fundamental failure by agencies to take ownership of risk and an inappropriate merry go round of referrals, the government argues it would be premature to codify the inquiry's lessons before a fuller review of its recommendations this summer.

But we've seen before how recommendations from vital inquiries, such as the independent Inquiry into Child Sexual abuse and the Manchester Arena inquiry, can be accepted in principle yet delayed in practice. The families in Southport deserve more than a watching brief. They deserve the certainty of law. I also hope these concerns will be reflected in the Home Office guidance for youth diversion orders. I welcome the Minister's offer to share the guidance in advance and trust it will be as clear and unambiguous as he has indicated.

However, in light of the concessions made and the Minister's assurance on parliamentary oversight via the negative proceeds, I am prepared to accept the government's position today and will not divide the House on motion C1. But let me be clear this is not the end of the matter. We will watch closely for the guidance to be laid before Parliament. The Home Secretary has already admitted past guidance failed because it was applied inconsistently. If the new guidance is lacking or the government's response to the Fulford report is diluted, I will not hesitate to table a motion to ensure this House can fully debate those failings.

My Lords, we are legislating for powers designed to prevent mass casualty tragedies, so safety must be built on the full multi-agency picture, not on administrative hope.
16:13
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And my notes, and I'd like to congratulate the noble Lord Lord congratulate the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones on pushing amendment A1, which I will be supporting just very briefly after the last ping pong debate on the issue of on the spot fines by private enterprises, I was actually inundated by lots of people sending me complaints of egregious harassment by these very agencies, these very bodies, these enforcement agencies. And people were just outraged at what they saw as an abuse of a system.

And I thought I'd just quote one. He said, not only does one have to, as you walk down the high street, look out for phone snatchers, but you also have to look out for official muggers after your money and then find out they're employed by the contract, and they're just as illegitimate and just as anti-social. So if I can emphasise this abuse of the public's absolutely understandable concern and frustration about anti-social behaviour and the government's completely correct focus on tackling anti-social behaviour is threatened by an enforcement regime that's discrediting.

That's why enforcement matters. If the legitimacy of the enforcement response is weak, then it actually means that we're not tackling anti-social behaviour and the public just becomes cynical about the whole enterprise. And I also wanted to support amendment D one under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who I'm glad to see has brought this back in a different way. The horrifying context that we live in are the series of arson attacks, alleged plots and conspiracy of firebombings of synagogues, Jewish charities and Jewish businesses that we're all familiar with, and the Prime Minister rightly says we won't relent in our fight against anti-Semitism and terror.

Perpetrators will feel the full force of the law. And I think that this is one way that they could feel a fuller force of the law, because we do know that there is increasingly likely that many of the issues that we're facing on UK soil are committed by Iranian commissioned proxies and are tangled up with the ID, R, C and the noble Lord, the Lord Minister, suggested that it is not appropriate to have a running commentary on prescription. And I think I understand his concerns, but I think this amendment is trying to tackle the key question of how the government can stop the IRC operating on British soil.

But it's also the case that when in opposition, the Labour Party had in fact conducted a long running commentary on this very issue. So early in 2023, the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, said in Parliament we will prescribe the ID r c either by using existing terrorism legislation or by creating a new process for prescription for hostile state action. And in July 2023, the then shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, reiterated that a Labour government would apply full ban.

Now in 2026, at a time of heightened threats and and and heightened Iranian backed anti-Semitic attacks. We get zilch. It just feels inexplicable. I just don't understand it. And then just finally, the noble Lord, the Minister rightly reminded us at the start of this debate about the anniversary of the horrific murder of Stephen Lawrence, and those of us old enough will remember the impact that racist murder had on us all. It was a jolt for society, and it rightly led to serious actions and legislation to tackle racism.

I just want to remind the House that anti-Semitism is the oldest form of racism, yet somehow it doesn't seem to merit the same strength of action. It deserves urgent action against the culprits. And we know who some of those culprits are the I, g, r, C, or at least one of the key players in anti-Jewish attacks anti-Jewish hatred, let alone its own attacks on its own Iranian citizens who live here. So I just would urge us all to support the prescription of the ID BRC.

prescription of the ID BRC.
16:18
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, in relation to motion A1 move so ably by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on disincentivizing fining for profit and importantly, ensuring that contractors found to be profiting profiteering from fixed penalty notices may risk losing their contracts. I have nothing to add to what he said on motion C and C1, to which my noble friend Baroness Doocey spoke. It is encouraging that she has accepted the insurances assurances and that the government has given the assurances they have as to the future guidance that there is to be on youth diversion orders, but I do hope to hear from the government that they take her note of possible future action, parliamentary action on this.

If the guidance doesn't work, I turn now to the Conservative Motion D1 to be moved by the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower relating to the proscription of Iran related entities. Now we accept that on some readings, the Marshalled List could be taken to suggest that the government and opposition parties are not dramatically far apart on motions D and D1, so motion D1, the conservative motion, which we support, calls for a review of organisations related to possible proscription of Iranian armed forces within a month, whereas the Commons amendment in lieu in which in favour of which the noble Lord the Minister spoke would require only a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State relating to prescription orders.

But, my Lords, those differences, in fact, mask an important point of constitutional principle when this issue of proscription of the IRGC was considered by this House last Thursday, the noble Lord, the Minister said, as he said again today, that the government would not give a running commentary on prescription. And that's been the position of previous governments and keeps the issues of prescription under review. The noble Lords approach was. And is that because the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower and I, and by implication, everyone not privy to government intelligence intelligence briefings has not had the intelligence the government has received from the intelligence services.

It follows that it is the government's right to make these judgements as a government on what organisations are prescribed and when. And the noble Lord. The Minister's approach was largely echoed by Minister Sarah Jones in the other place, on Monday of this week. My Lords, I say that we do understand the government's approach and in particular, we are not seeking a running commentary on ongoing consideration of the prescription of possible organisations. Nevertheless, we contend that the government's approach misunderstands the constitutional position decisions on orders proscribing organisations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and such orders cannot take effect unless approved by both Houses of Parliament, so they are ultimately decisions for Parliament.

If these decisions were for the executive alone, the requirement for a vote of both houses would be both meaningless and contradictory of the legislation. Furthermore, the government's position would mean inconsistently, that while parliamentary approval is required to approve a prescription recommended by the executive, Parliament is not entitled to take a view on the prescription of any organisation that the government does not recommend for any reason for prescription, whether that reason be good or bad. My Lords, that is constitutionally unsustainable.

Just as a sovereign Parliament would be entitled to legislate to require a prescription. So this Parliament is entitled, quite entitled to take the far more modest step of insisting on a report, not just about the general principles of prescription, to enable us to understand the procedure, as the noble Lord would have us accept. But on the government's reasoning in relation to the IRGC and other organisations related to the Iranian military considerations, such as those spoken to by the noble Lady Baroness Fox, are important for Parliament and Government in considering whether or not to prescribe organisations, just as they might be on a motion to approve an order laid by government for a positive prescription.

The noble Lady referred to David Lammy's and Yvette Cooper's support in opposition for proscription of the IRGC, and those are relevant considerations for Parliament. So, my Lords, we will vote solidly in support of Lord David's amendment, and we commend it to the House.
16:24
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah, yeah. Thank you. >> My Lords. I thank. >> The noble. >> Lord, the Minister, for moving the. Motions in his name today, and the. Motions in his name today, and I'm pleased to see the government moving. Amendments 11 C to 11 F to include guidance and evidence collection and the exercise of seizure powers in the Secretary of State's statutory guidance, and we are happy to accept these. But I would add that it's over a year ago now that my hon.

Friend Matt Vickers brought these to the attention of the Other place, and it was rejected at that point by the government, and it's regrettable that the government were against our amendments here, and we have only just arrived at this point as a result of the persistence of this side of the House. I'm also pleased that the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones has tabled his motion. We support this, and if he decides to divide the house, we will be with him. I've tabled motion D one to disagree with the Commons amendments and to offer my own amendment in lieu, which is only slightly altered from the previous version.

The only change I've made is to narrow the language to mention groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, as opposed to focusing on groups linked to the Iranian government as a whole. My Lords, it's it's very peculiar how one's opinion can change so greatly when one enters government. As has already been alluded to by the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley, the Labour Party used to stand on this side of the House, urging conservative Ministers to proscribe the IRGC. In fact, on the 7th of March 2023, during the Report stage debate on the National Security Bill in this House, the noble Lord Lord Coaker, then the opposition Home Office Shadow Minister, moved an amendment with the express purpose of requiring the government to proscribe the IRGC.

Now the noble Lord stood at this very Dispatch Box and said, it is in the national security interests of this country for the IRGC to be prescribed as soon as possible. End of quote. And that was the view the Labour Party in 2023. But clearly they no longer believe that that is the case. Instead, the government have offered us a statement within six months outlining the process of prescription under the Terrorism Act 2000, and when speaking to the government's amendment in the House of Commons, the Minister, Sarah Jones MP, said that this was to help the opposition and others to understand the prescription process.

My Lords, we do not need to be patronised by this government. We can all read the conditions in section three of the Terrorism Act. We know what the process is. Our contention is that the government is not willing to use that process effectively. We can see plainly and clearly that the IRGC meets that threshold. And I say to the noble Lord, the Minister, put yourselves in our shoes. If he were standing where I am today, would he accept a statement on the process as being sufficient to prevent him pressing this to a division? I'm doubtful he would.

My Lords, we should be in no doubt that the IRGC poses a significant threat to our country when we have seen in 2025 alone more than 20 potentially lethal Iran backed plots on British soil when we have seen numerous anti-Semitic attacks carried out in Britain, and when we have seen the IRGC ramping up their plots in attacks across the Middle East and beyond, then we know we have a problem. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation. Just today we have seen how they have fired a merchant vessels transiting through the Straits of Hormuz.

We must act against groups that pose a threat to our national security. The United States have banned the IRGC, as has Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even the European Union. If they can, why can't we? Surely, my Lords, it is time for the government to listen to the British people, listen to Parliament and listen to themselves and prescribe the IRGC as soon as possible, and I beg to move the. And, my Lords, may I just, before I sit down, align myself with Commons in relation to the appalling events that led to the death of Stephen well.
16:28
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well, said Lord Davies of Gower. who've spoken in this short debate, and may I just, with the leave of the House, respond to those comments on fixed penalty notices? I had genuinely hoped that the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones would have accepted that we've moved significantly towards this position. Everybody wants to see fixed penalty notices issued in a fair and proportionate manner, and the government amendments would have helped and will help ensure that this is the case. But I think we also need to accept that there's a continuing role for external contractors in the enforcement of ASB orders, and I don't believe we should close the door to that, which I think our assessment is.

The noble Lords amendment would do. So. I recognise that the noble Lord Clement Jones is not happy, but I just before before we move to a potential division on this, I just want to again recommit what I said in my initial opening remarks that we commit to a passage in the guidance that I will produce on behalf of the Home Office that will say where external contractors are used, private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties.

I think that meets the overlord's objective. But if if he remains unhappy, then that's the way these things work. So we'll have to examine that in a moment. Can I also note and welcome the noble Lord Davis's of Gowers acceptance of our position on the Fly-tipping issue and the removal and crushing of vehicles? The guidance will help, and I'm grateful for his support. I'm also similarly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ducie, for accepting the government's amendments in lieu on youth diversion orders.

Now, I know again, she feels very strongly about the issue of Southport and the recommendations from Southport, and I just reiterate, for the purposes of placing on record that we will respond to Sir Adrian Fulford's recommendations on Southport by the summer. We received them a week last Monday at 12 noon. We want to ensure that we give full consideration to them and we will respond to them and take action accordingly, and I can't therefore pre-empt our consideration of those recommendations, but I it doesn't mean we're not going to look at them significantly and ensure that we respond in due course to those recommendations.

But I'm grateful to her for at least today, accepting, I hope, our amendments in lieu on these matters. Now, again, the Lord Davies of Gower, the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley and the noble Lord Marks of Henley have all spoken on the question of the IRGC. I have to say I'm disappointed that the noble Lord is continuing to press this issue. And I know, and I've heard what other noble Lords have said on this matter. I just refer back to the very principle that the prescription of a body, any organisation at any time, is subject to the 2000 act, and that is, as the noble Lord Marks Lord Henley rightly said, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament, and that is an opportunity for government then, to both lay out the reasons why prescription should take place, to be tested on those reasons and to be done in a public forum where those matters are considered.

This is asking the government to take a prescription potential order when
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page