---

Crime and Policing Bill

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on pushing Motion A1, which I will be supporting.

After the previous ping-pong debate on the issue of on-the-spot fines by private enterprises, I was inundated with complaints about egregious harassment by these very bodies, these enforcement agencies. People were outraged at what they saw as an abuse of the system. I quote one, who said, “Not only you have 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 that they are employed by the contract. They are just as illegitimate and just as anti-social”.

I emphasise that this abuse of the public’s understandable frustration and concern about anti-social behaviour—and the Government’s completely correct focus on tackling it—is made worse by an enforcement regime that is discredited. That is why enforcement matters: if the legitimacy of the enforcement response is weak, it means that we are not tackling anti-social behaviour and the public just become cynical about the whole enterprise.

4.15 pm

I also support Motion D1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who I am glad to see has brought this back in a different way. The horrifying context that we live in is the series of arson attacks, alleged plots and conspiracy to commit fire bombings of synagogues, Jewish charities and Jewish businesses that we are all familiar with. The Prime Minister rightly says:

“We won’t relent in our fight against antisemitism and terror … perpetrators will feel the full force of the law”.

This is one way that they could feel a fuller force of the law. We know that it is increasingly likely that many of the issues we are facing on UK soil are committed by Iranian-commissioned proxies and are tangled up with the IRGC.

The Minister suggested that it is not appropriate to have a running commentary on proscription. I think I understand his concerns, but this amendment is trying to tackle the key question of how the Government can stop the IRGC operating on British soil. However, in opposition, Labour did in fact conduct a long-running commentary on this very issue. Early in 2023, the then shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said in Parliament:

“We would proscribe the IRGC, either by using existing terrorism legislation or by creating a new process of proscription for hostile state actors”.

—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/23; col. 186.]

In July 2023, the then shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, reiterated that a Labour Government would apply a full ban. Now, in 2026, at a time of heightened threats and increased Iranian-backed antisemitic attacks, we get zilch. It just feels inexplicable—I do not understand it.

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.