Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, the Minister rightly reminded us at the start of this debate about the anniversary of the horrific murder of Stephen Lawrence. Those of us who are old enough will remember the impact that that racist murder had on us all. It was a jolt to society, and it rightly led to serious actions and legislation to tackle racism. I remind the House that antisemitism is the oldest form of racism, yet somehow it does not 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 IRGC is at least one of the key players in anti-Jewish attacks and anti-Jewish hatred, let alone attacks on its own Iranian citizens who live here. I urge us all to support the proscription of the IRGC.

[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.