Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: Proscription

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the legislation and for its fast track. We are getting ahead of ourselves. I am in the hands of the House of Commons and the House of Lords to end up with a legislation product that may or may not be amended. I hope that it will be passed speedily. I assure the noble Lord that the Government take this matter seriously and will make all the assessments that he has mentioned in relation to any power that the Government are given by the legislation that is passed. If this legislation can be fast-tracked, we will be able to make any assessments that we wish to make as soon as practicable after it is passed. As I say, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, now that the Government have published the National Security (State Threats) Bill, I can confirm to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill can progress swiftly. I do have a few concerns, however, with the drafting of the Bill. One is that, unlike the Terrorism Act 2000, the Bill does not criminalise membership of a designated group. Can the Minister explain why?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have had a detailed letter from the noble Lord raising a number of points that I will respond to. I am hoping to see him before the Bill comes to this House, for a private discussion on some of those matters. We have acted upon recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC, whom we asked to review this legislation. The Bill before Parliament is what he has assessed is a workable piece of legislation.

On including issues such as a membership offence, Jonathan Hall has judged that that is not workable because of international law considerations. We will have to debate that detail, but I hope that ultimately we can settle on a Bill that gives the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary in this case—the power to act against any state threat in a way that we are not able to do now. The House has pressed me about this on many occasions. We have not been able to do it because of the failings in the legislation to date. To deal with those challenges, this Bill will make that difference. I am grateful for the noble Lord's support.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

In conclusion, we recognise that this instrument is a technical update which improves the coherence of the existing regime, and we support it. However, this also marks a moment where, if the Government wish the United Kingdom to be a genuine leader in this area, further steps will be required, including consideration of more comprehensive primary legislation on animal health and welfare in science.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am pleased to say from the outset that these Benches are broadly supportive of what the Government are seeking to achieve, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed.

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is rightly regarded as a cornerstone of the UK’s world-leading regulatory framework for the use of animals in science. It embodies the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement—the three Rs—and has for 40 years provided a rigorous harm/benefit frame- work that commands respect both domestically and internationally. These regulations do nothing to diminish that framework.

In essence, this instrument tidies the house. It restates, revokes and replaces assimilated law—the legacy EU provisions that were absorbed into our statute book following Brexit—and consolidates them properly and coherently into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Explanatory Memorandum is candid about this being a technical continuity measure. No new burdens are placed on licence holders, and no new regulatory requirements are introduced. I think that is the right approach, and I commend the Home Office for bringing it forward. I also note that Northern Ireland has been properly engaged: legislative consent was obtained and no objections were raised. That matters, given that the regulation of animals used in science is a devolved matter. I am glad that the Government have handled it appropriately.

However, there is one question that I must put to the Minister because it goes to the very foundation of the legal authority underpinning this instrument. The matter has already been alluded to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The regulations are made under Sections 12 and 14 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The Explanatory Memorandum itself acknowledges, at paragraph 6.8, that any regulation made under those powers

“must be made by no later than 23 June 2026”.

That deadline is now a matter of days away. Can the Minister confirm what will happen after 23 June, should further technical consolidation of assimilated law in this area be required, whether by way of correction, clarification or updating the powers in Sections 12 and 14, which will no longer be available? The only route would be primary legislation, which, as the memorandum itself observes, is a considerably more burdensome vehicle for what may in some cases be very minor adjustments. Will the Government set out how they intend to address that gap? Are there further instruments in this area still in preparation that need to be made before the deadline falls?

I am satisfied that this instrument is legally sound and practically sensible. We support it, but I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on the question of what comes next.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the detailed questions and contributions that have been made. I welcome back my noble friend Lord Stansgate following his short interregnum in parliamentary life. Having myself been subject, at one point, to a short interregnum—slightly longer than his—I know that it is certainly a gap that is felt personally, but I am pleased to see him back in his place today.

I welcome the support, in broad terms, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. The central point, which I hope reassures the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady McIntosh, is that these regulations do not weaken the safeguards for the use of animals in science. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the cornerstone of the UK system. These regulations make simple technical amendments for restating, revoking and replacing the retained EU provisions so that the legislation continues to operate effectively in domestic law.

I reassure noble Lords that the measures do not reduce welfare standards, create new permissions for animal use or remove existing safeguards, and animal use may still be authorised only where there is no viable alternative and following rigorous independent scrutiny. I say that at the beginning of my comments because it goes to the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Grender, about the future direction of travel. In the document produced in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, in DSIT, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in Defra, we set out, as a manifesto commitment, the direction of travel and a road map to reduce the use of animals in science and, ultimately, to set out further downstream how we can end it altogether, if possible, which is a very big challenge. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, there are still some areas where it makes a valuable contribution to medical research. We intend to attempt to meet the 35% reduction target mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. That is a joint effort between DSIT and Defra. We have put in £75 million, and the Home Office has oversight of that regulation.

A number of points were made around the Brexit reset Bill. I am afraid I cannot comment in detail on the content of that Bill. What we are trying to do is to give statutory footing to the existing procedures to date. I will look at the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made with regard to 23 June, but my understanding is that we have brought all the changes forward to ensure that this is now in UK domestic legislation without ties to the EU, and that this instrument covers all the necessary requirements. I will check that, because it is important that we do so, but that is my understanding of the situation to date.

In response to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who mentioned a number of points, Section 3 of the code will be republished and we will seek to update the section that he mentioned. I have commissioned the ASC to look into how we deliver leading best practice for animals in science. Again, that goes to the heart of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made from the Front Bench.

Regulatory oversight remains the responsibility of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, which operates under regulatory principles that include proportionality, transparency and accountability. Related to points made in the debate, if there are instances of non-compliance, the regulator retains a wide range of enforcement powers, from advice and licence variation through to suspension, revocation and, in the most serious cases, referral for prosecution. Nothing in the regulations changes that. Enforcement decisions are evidence-based and risk-informed. The aim of the instrument and the work that we are doing is to secure the best outcomes for animal welfare and ensure that the regulatory framework operates proportionately and effectively while driving continuous improvement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also mentioned Herbie’s law. I understand the interest and concern around developing a proposed framework for replacing animals in medical research by 2035. We tried not to set arbitrary deadlines in our document as they could prove undeliverable. Instead, we have set out a science-based approach that provides clear timelines for specific deliverable actions as evidence and capability are developed. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Government’s new strategy sets out a long-term vision for a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated except in exceptional circumstances, and even those might be areas where we can push forward as medicine and science develop. However, it is not yet possible to replace all animal use, given the complexity of whole biological systems.

However, I assure her and those supporters of Herbie’s law that the Government are clear that progress must be led by science. Progress must be made, but in a way that does not lose the benefits that my noble friend mentioned. We are all living healthier lives today because of the outcomes of research and investment, however difficult and challenging this is at certain points in time.

I hope I have answered all the points in front of the Committee today. Those that need further investigation I will respond to in due course. If there are no further comments, I commend this SI to the Committee.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

On that 23 June issue, once the Minister has ascertained what the situation is, could he write, letting me know?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I certainly can but, again, my understanding is that the instrument before us today covers all necessary requirements. We have brought forward all the changes needed to ensure that UK domestic legislation is correct without ties to EU law and that the 23 June deadline is, effectively, met by these regulations. I will reflect on that. I cannot give details of the Brexit Bill. It has not been published yet so it is not appropriate to do so. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said and, if there is further information to add, I will write to him. If any noble Lord wishes to have that correspondence, can they please contact my office?

Concealed Surveillance Equipment in Government Offices and Vehicles

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend is pressing me to comment on these matters. I cannot comment on security issues—nor would the House, I suspect, wish me to do so—except to say that the Government will ensure that all matters in government activity are secure. The Government take every step they possibly can to make sure that the types of incidents my noble friend refers to do not happen and are prevented.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that this is a highly disturbing and troubling discovery, which demonstrates the severity of the espionage threat that we face today. To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, given that the camera was found in the offices where Ministers approved the application for the new Chinese mega-embassy, it seems highly likely that China or a person linked to China is behind this. Surely this has to serve as a wake-up call for the Government, so how can they still go ahead with allowing China to build a massive spy hub in the middle of London after this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I would caution the noble Lord about jumping to conclusions as to who, what, where or when was behind the device that was found. I genuinely caution him on that but, with regard to the Chinese embassy, I can say that the planning decision was taken independently; the intelligence services have been involved throughout; there have been extensive negotiations; and the Chinese Government themselves have agreed to consolidate their seven current sites in London into one, which brings clear security advantages for the United Kingdom. The noble Lord has made interesting points and we will examine, and determine, the facts in due course.

Refugee Move-on Period Pilot Evaluation Report

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government talk up, of course, the number of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers they have returned, but the Minister knows that the number of enforced returns—those people the Home Office forcibly deports—was only 9,700, a small number in the grand scheme and scale of the problem. Given the significant number of people who are living in Britain illegally, what actions are the Government taking this year to ramp up deportation of those who have no right to be here?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord and his Government had jurisdiction over these matters for 14 years. The number of asylum seekers rose; the processing fell; the number of hotels increased; the number of deportations fell; and the number of criminal justice activities increased. So I say to the noble Lord quite clearly: the position now is better than it was when he left office. There are more deportations than before; there are more hotel closures; there are fewer asylum applications, and they are being dealt with more speedily. I will defend that record in front of this House and in front of him on every day of the week.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Let that be the challenge to us all, across this House, across government and across society. It is the very least we can do to honour the memory of Henry Nowak. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is an appalling and tragic case. The brutal murder of Henry Nowak, the lies told by Vickrum Digwa and the behaviour of the police officers involved have made it all the more sickening. This was a young man, a university student, who was stabbed before being handcuffed by police as he lay dying and crying out, “I can’t breathe”.

I have been a police officer. I was an officer for 32 years, policing some of the most challenging parts of London. I cannot fathom acting in the way those officers acted. The first course of action I would have taken is to prioritise the person who has been injured, yet in this case, when met with a person shouting, “I’ve been stabbed”, the response of one of the officers at the scene was, “I don’t think you have, mate”.

I have said before, and I will say again at this Dispatch Box, that at the root of the problem with modern policing are two things: training and operational discretion. Officers are being trained to tick boxes rather than exercise their discretion and common sense. We need less national guidance and bureaucratic requirements and more focus on training officers to utilise their judgment.

What has also become blatantly clear from this is how police today will prioritise accusations of racism over murder. That is a wholly unacceptable symptom of the corruption of the once widely accepted concept of equality before the law. This is not only evident in the statements and general attitudes of senior police officers and politicians but enshrined in policing policy documents. In March 2025, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing produced the Police Anti-Racism Commitment. That document states that the police commitment to racial equity means:

“Producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised”.


It also states—this is the worst part—that racial equity

“does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”.

That is an explicit statement of policy that the police should not treat all ethnicities the same. It encourages police forces to artificially engineer arrests and crime statistics so that they are equalised for all ethnic groups, regardless of offending rates.

That is not equality; that is blatantly two-tier policing. It states that people should be treated differently by the police based on the colour of their skin. We should be clear-eyed about the insidious nature of this approach. It is completely divisive. It promotes sectarianism and the ideology of separatism.

Much of this arose out of the Black Lives Matter movement after the murder of George Floyd in the United States. When George Floyd was murdered by police on another continent, politicians and campaigners in this country rallied behind Black Lives Matter. Senior police officers responded by calling it a

“pivotal moment for policing in the UK”,

even though it happened 4,000 miles away in a very different policing environment. There were numerous protests, with many becoming violent and leading to riotous clashes with police.

Yet with the murder of Henry Nowak and the dehumanising treatment he endured from the police, where are those same voices calling for change? Almost every person who is currently saying that we should not politicise the death of Henry Nowak was more than happy to politicise the death of George Floyd.

Those who criticise the violent protests in Southampton did not bat an eyelid when Black Lives Matter were attacking police officers and tearing down statues. We were told constantly that Black lives matter and that to say that all lives matter is somehow unacceptable. I think there has been a blatantly hypocritical approach to these two cases.

Well, I am very clear: all disorder, rioting and violent protest is totally unacceptable. No one’s death should be politicised. My right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition was absolutely correct when she said:

“I don’t want to hear about Black Lives Matter. I don’t want to hear about white lives matter. We all matter”.


They are two sides of the same coin. This is identity politics. It is a poisonous ideology that divides people by placing them into different groups with supposedly opposing interests. This is not how we foster cultural and social unity and cohesion as a nation. All instances of identity politics must be consigned to the dustbin of history. The police’s treatment of Henry Nowak clearly exposes that. Will the Government commit, very clearly, to scrapping the police anti-racism commitment and all similar ideologically motivated equality, diversity and inclusion policies?

During the proceedings on the Crime and Policing Bill in your Lordships’ House, I tabled an amendment to exclude the police from the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. I argued then that this duty created a perverse incentive for the police to prioritise equality practices over their one true duty: protecting the public, preventing crime and arresting criminals. Unfortunately, the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches voted it down. Does this case not clearly demonstrate the folly of the equality duty? This is exactly why we brought forward that amendment: to get the police back on track and doing their actual jobs.

I appreciate the tone and content of the Statement from the Home Secretary but, unless the Government take immediate action to sweep away identitarian politics from the police, her words will never be more than empty platitudes.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, in the face of an unimaginable tragedy, the Nowak family has shown a level of moral leadership that puts many in the political sphere to shame. While others have rushed to use the death of their 18 year-old son to stoke the fires of a culture war, the family’s plea has been for one thing: justice without division. Henry was a young man with a life of promise ahead of him. We owe it to his memory to honour his family’s request for unity, rather than allowing his death to be weaponised by those seeking to tear our social fabric apart.

However, the details that have so far emerged of the police response at the scene raise deeply troubling questions. When we see footage of a dying teenager being handcuffed and told he is under arrest while his killer’s lies are taken at face value, we are seeing the consequences of a system that has lost its focus on the victim. This strikes at the very heart of public trust. We must ask how the basic instinct to preserve life was so catastrophically overridden by a false narrative provided at the scene.

However, we must also confront the “two-tier policing” narrative being peddled by opportunistic voices. This rhetoric is not just false; it is dangerous. It ignores the fact that the perpetrator’s actions were condemned by his own community and that the weapon used was not a protected religious item. Our response must be rooted in fact and liberal values, not in the reactionary populism that seeks to label entire communities for the crimes of one individual.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Does he agree that this investigation must not only consider the actions of individual officers but examine whether there were systemic failures in training and guidance, particularly in the management of complex and fast-moving incidents? In much of Europe, initial police training lasts years, but in England and Wales the classroom-based foundation is typically 18 to 22 weeks. So I once again repeat our calls for an independent review of police training, which has not taken place since 2018.

Hampshire Police has referred itself to the IOPC. Will the Minister commit to updating the House promptly once that investigation concludes, and to ensuring that its findings are published in full?

Following the trial, there have been reports from Sikh organisations of a significant increase in anti-Sikh hate crime. What steps are the Government taking to support community cohesion and protect minority communities from being targeted in the aftermath of this case?

Can the Minister confirm that the weapon used in this case was not a ceremonial kirpan but a different, larger knife, and that the Government’s focus remains on tackling knife crime in all its forms rather than restricting lawful religious practice?

Finally, does the Minister agree that rebuilding public confidence depends on effective neighbourhood policing, with officers properly embedded in their communities and, crucially, backed by sustained investment, including in youth services, which have been decimated in recent years?

Unite the Kingdom March

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend will wish to know that, under existing legislation—and, indeed, under the Crime and Policing Act that was passed by this House with Royal Assent only on 29 April—the police already have powers to both ban marches and/or reroute marches away from areas of potential conflict and issue. That is a judgment for the police. It would be wrong for politicians to determine which marches take place and when, but it is right that the police look at public security and public order and make some determinations. They have done and will do so.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, there were two protests last weekend. One of those attracted widespread condemnation from the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and most in the Parliamentary Labour Party; the other attracted little or no condemnation. That other protest, staged by the far left, saw Nazi salutes, calls for Jews to be beheaded and the displaying of a sign calling Jewish people Nazis. One wonders why those very people who found it so easy to criticise one of those protests found it so difficult to criticise the other. Can the Minister perhaps give a guarantee that legitimate criticism of religion, which is a fundamental aspect of free speech, is always maintained?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The right to criticise religion is perfectly acceptable and in order. But again, I put it to the noble Lord that those rights to criticise also come with responsibilities. There is a clear definition in law about what is regarded as abuse, what is discrimination and what is intimidation and harassment. In both cases, if such instances are determined by the police, then the police will take action and, as on Saturday, arrests will be made. Some arrests were made in relation to the noble Lord’s question and some were in relation to the initial demonstration raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, so the police act fairly and the legislation is set down. I want to see a fair and open society where people can enjoy their religion and criticise political activity and/or religion, as well as states, at will, but within a limit.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Those who commit those types of offences do not fall within the remit of Martyn’s law, but they do fall within the remit of other criminal justice legislation. If individuals committing vandalism or intimidation on buildings or staff can be identified, they will face the potential, through the City of London Police, of being taken to court and put in front of a jury. If the jury decides that they are guilty, they will be sentenced and face a penalty for that. It is absolutely right that we condemn those actions. There are democratic ways that people can make protests without damaging buildings and intimidating people.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Further to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, in her Question, Schedule 1 to the Act specifies that halls and hire venues are included in the scope of the duties in the Act. The Home Office guidance published this month states that this includes village halls and community centres. The Minister will be aware from our debates during the legislative process that many village halls are run by volunteers on very tight budgets. Given that they will already be struggling with the Government’s record tax rises, how will the Government ensure that smaller venues such as these are supported, in compliance with the legislation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, we had full and good exchanges on this when the Bill came before this House and the House of Commons. I explained then, as I will explain now, that the impact assessment assesses that small organisations will face around a £330 charge over a 10-year period to meet the obligations of Martyn’s law and the protection of premises Act. I do not think that a £33 a year cost for potential training or advice is significant when potentially it will help save lives, which is the whole purpose of Martyn’s law.

We had that debate during the passage of the Bill. Both Houses of Parliament agreed it was reasonable. I suggest that the noble Lord accepts that reasonableness and helps us to ensure that the guidance is well understood and implemented across the board.

Student Visas

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, it is important that we get the first decision right, because it is important for the person who is applying and for the process and the cost, as she mentioned. Student visa decisions are made by trained caseworkers, who apply the Immigration Rules and are supported by clear guidance, quality assurance and oversight. Original performance decisions are kept under continual review. I hope that we can, over time, improve the decision-making process.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, 90% of Pakistanis who claim asylum enter the United Kingdom on a student, work or visit visa, as well as 87% of Bangladeshi nationals and 71% of Indian nationals. This is clearly a major abuse of the system. How will the Government get a grip on this problem and clamp down on the abuse of the visa system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, we have already put a brake on Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan for the very reason that there were high levels of asylum claims from them—470% of their 2021 levels. That is a temporary halt. We keep all options under review and it is important that the student route is not seen as a precursor to an asylum claim.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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 Davies of Gower (Con)]

I will let the Minister know in a moment.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[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.

Motion B1 not moved.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, regarding Motion A1, moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, on disincentivising fining for profit and, importantly, ensuring that contractors found to be profiteering from fixed penalty notices may risk losing their contracts, I have nothing to add to what he said.

On Motions C and C1, to which my noble friend Lady Doocey spoke, it is encouraging that she has accepted the assurances the Government have given on the future guidance on youth diversion orders, but I hope to hear from the Government that they take note of her reference to possible future parliamentary action on this if the guidance does not work.

I turn to the Conservatives’ Motion D1, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, relating to the proscription of Iran-related entities. 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. Motion D1, the Conservative Motion which we support, calls for a review within one month of whether any organisations related to the Iranian armed forces should be proscribed, whereas the Commons Amendment in lieu, in favour of which the Minister spoke, would require only a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State relating to proscription orders. However, those differences mask an important point of constitutional principle.

When the issue of proscribing the IRGC was considered by this House last Thursday, the Minister said, as he said again today, that the Government would not give a running commentary on proscription—as has been the position of previous Governments—and would keep the issues of proscription under review. The noble Lord’s approach was, and is, that because the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I, and by implication everyone not privy to government intelligence briefings, have not had the intelligence that the Government have received from the intelligence services, it follows that it is the Government’s right to make these judgments, as a Government, on which organisations are proscribed and when. The Minister’s approach was largely echoed by Minister Sarah Jones in the other place on Monday of this week.

We understand the Government’s approach. In particular, we are not seeking a running commentary on ongoing consideration of the proscription 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 meaningless and contradictory of the legislation.

Furthermore, the Government’s position would mean, inconsistently, that while parliamentary approval is required to approve a proscription recommended by the Executive, Parliament is not entitled to take a view on the proscription of any organisation that the Government do not recommend for any reason for proscription, whether that reason be good or bad. That is constitutionally unsustainable. Just as a sovereign Parliament would be entitled to legislate to require a proscription so this Parliament is quite entitled to take the far more modest step of insisting on a report—not just about the general principles of proscription to enable us to understand the procedure, as the Minister 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 Baroness, Lady Fox, are important for Parliament and government in considering whether to proscribe organisations, just as they might be on a Motion to approve an order laid by the Government for a positive proscription. The noble Baroness referred to David Lammy’s and Yvette Cooper’s support in opposition for proscription of the IRGC, and those are relevant considerations for Parliament. We will vote solidly in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and we commend it to the House.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Motions in his name, and I am pleased to see the government Amendments 11C to 11F to include guidance on evidence collection and the exercise of seizure powers in the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance. We are happy to accept these. But I add that it is over a year ago now that my honourable friend Matt Vickers brought these to the attention of the other place, and they were rejected at that point by the Government. It is 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 am 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 tabled Motion D1 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 have 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.

It is peculiar how one’s opinion can change so greatly when one enters government. As was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady 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 7 March 2023, during the Report stage debate on the National Security Bill, 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. 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 proscribed as soon as possible”.—[Official Report, 7/3/23; col. 753.]


That was the view of the Labour Party in 2023, but clearly it no longer believes that that is the case.

Instead, the Government have offered us a Statement within six months outlining the process of proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. 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 proscription process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/26; col. 104.]

We do not need to be patronised by this Government. We can all read the conditions in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act. We know what the process is. Our contention is that the Government are not willing to use that process effectively. We can see plainly and clearly that the IRGC meets that threshold. I say to the Minister: put yourselves in our shoes. If he were standing where I am today, would he accept a Statement on the process as sufficient to prevent him pressing this to a Division? I doubt he would.

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 antisemitic attacks carried out in Britain, and when we have seen the IRGC ramping up its plots and 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 it has fired at merchant vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. We must act against groups that pose a threat to our national security. The United States has banned the IRGC, as have Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even the European Union. If they can, why can we not? Surely it is time for the Government to listen to the British people, listen to Parliament and listen to themselves, and proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible.

Before I sit down, I align myself with the comments on the appalling events that led to the death of Stephen Lawrence, which I remember only too well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in this short debate, and I will respond to their comments. On fixed penalty notices, I had genuinely hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would have accepted that we have moved significantly towards his position. Everybody wants to see fixed penalty notices issued fairly and proportionately, and the Government’s amendments would have helped and will help to ensure that this is the case. But we also need to accept that there is a continuing role for external contractors in the enforcement of ASB orders, and I do not believe we should close the door to that, which is what in our assessment the noble Lord’s amendment would do.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not happy. However, before we move to a potential Division on this, I recommit to what I said in my opening remarks: we commit to a passage in the guidance, which 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 noble Lord’s objective. If he remains unhappy, that is the way these things work, so we will have to examine that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

Leave out from “439” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D in lieu, and do propose Amendments 439E and 439F in lieu—

439E: After Clause 190, insert the following new Clause—
“Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review
(1) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, review whether any organisations related to the Iranian Armed Forces should be proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (proscription).
(2) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of the review under subsection (1), and this must include the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision.”

439F: Page 232, line 1, at end insert—
“(ca) section (Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review);””

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to Members who have spoken in support of this Motion. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid I do not accept his argument. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.