House of Commons · Bill Debate
22 April 2026 · 3 other contributors
Opened by Sarah Jones Lab Croydon Central
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Sarah Jones raised concerns about anti-social behaviour, crime and policing bill - lords amendments 2h, 2j; government motions 439c, 439d; lords amendments 439e, 439f in lieu in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
Key requests to Government
Resolved, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 2H and 2J, but proposes in lieu of those amendments amendment (a) to their amendment 2F and amendment (b) to their amendment 2G.
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Ms. Sarah Jones moves to disagree with the Lords' amendments 2H and 2J but proposes alternative amendments (a) to amendment 2F and (b) to amendment 2G, arguing that providing a running commentary on proscribing an organisation like the IRGC is not how responsible Governments operate.
Ms. Caroline Nokes supports the Government's motion insisting on amendments 439C and 439D, noting that the IRGC poses a significant threat to national security with credible threats in the UK. She interjects to highlight recent news of six Iranian women facing execution for protesting, urging the Government to proscribe the IRGC.
Ms. Joy Morrissey argues that proscribing the IRGC is necessary for national security, citing multiple credible threats from the organisation in the UK and its role in funding extremist groups. She urges the Government to reconsider and accept these Lords amendments.
Mr. Max Wilkinson supports the case for proscribing Iran-linked groups, noting recent antisemitic activities fuelled by Iranian funding and urging Members to recognise the threats posed by such organisations.