Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Question
Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to proscribe
the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the Government take the threat of the IRGC very
seriously, and continue to condemn its actions. The Government
will always consider the full range of powers available,
including our robust counterterrorism powers, such as the
proscription tool, where appropriate, to address the threat posed
by Iran and the IRGC.
(CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is now more than four
months since the House of Commons passed a resolution universally
in favour of the proscription of the IRGC. This is an
organisation which is committed to armed resistance against
Israel—exactly the same grounds on which the Government have
proscribed Hezbollah. Our intelligence services are clear that it
is committed to kidnappings and killings on UK soil. There must
be an argument within government not to do this. Can the Minister
enlighten the House on what that is? It seems very obvious to
many Members across both Houses that it should be proscribed.
(Con)
It might help if I explain what has been done. Over 300 Iranian
individuals and entities have been sanctioned for activities,
such as human rights violations, including 70 since October of
last year. Other activities include nuclear proliferation,
support to Russia and various regional activities. As an entity,
the IRGC was designated in its entirety under the Sanctions and
Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. More than 30 new designations of
IRGC-related organisations and officials have been made by the
FCDO since October 2022. The Government keep the list of
proscribed organisations under review, but I go back to my
earlier answer: while considering the range of available powers,
we will continue to make use of the robust counterterrorism
powers, including the proscription tool, where appropriate.
(Lab)
My Lords, that answer is simply not good enough. We have had
Ministers and Prime Ministers support the objective of banning
this organisation, which as the noble Lord said is a threat not
only to the citizens of Iran but to citizens in this country. We
have had commitments. I want to ask the Minister a more explicit
question: what discussions has his department had with the FCDO
on this matter? What discussions have been had with our allies
who have proscribed this organisation? It is about time we acted,
rather than just talked.
(Con)
The Home Office has a long-standing policy of not commenting
externally on proscription matters. As noble Lords will be aware,
that position is informed by many considerations, including to
avoid creating expectations that the Government will proscribe
certain organisation, to reduce the risk that an organisation
will take evasive action before a potential proscription order
comes into force, to manage the risk that subsequent decisions
are vulnerable to challenge on procedural grounds, and so on. As
for conversations with international partners, of course we work
with them. The UK’s approach to Iran is conducted in close
co-ordination with key partners, including the EU and the US.
(Con)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of
interests, particularly those relating to friendship towards to
Israel. Does my noble friend understand that there is a certain
feeling of Groundhog Day about his answers? We seem to be going
round the houses, time and again. As Members have suggested, this
is an organisation that pays people who send missiles into
residential areas in Israel and use children as human shields,
and that pays for organisations that have murdered a British
mother and her children. What more does the IRGC need to do for
the Government to proscribe it? All the reasons read out by my
noble friend are examples of why we should proscribe it. Why not
get on and just do it?
(Con)
As I say, it remains under active consideration. I go back to
what I said earlier: over 300 Iranian individuals and entities
have been sanctioned for various activities, including those
mentioned by my noble friend.
(Lab)
The Minister has evaded the questions from the noble Lords,
and , and from my noble friend.
There is clearly a huge row going on in Government—we all know
that. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office seems
somehow to be able to veto what the rest of government think is
appropriate, which is to proscribe this organisation. Can the
Minister confirm that? This shilly-shallying will produce the
effect he described as being so dangerous—that of giving due
warning to the organisation that proscription may be on the way.
(Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that it is shilly-shallying. As I
said, it remains under active discussion among many departments
in government.
(LD)
My Lords, I want to take the Minister’s view on what active
consideration means. On 26 March, it was reported that , the Minister, met campaigners for proscription and
told them that there would be proscription—that the Government
were going to proscribe—but that he could not give them a date
upon which that proscription was going to take place. Has such a
conversation taken place? Have the Government taken a decision
but are not yet ready to tell us?
(Con)
I am familiar with the meeting referred to by the noble Lord. Mr
Beheshti met the Security Minister on 29 March, following which
Mr Beheshti uploaded a video recording of the meeting and stated,
as the noble Lord has just outlined, that the Government are
intending to do this. The formal read-out from the meeting
confirmed that, unfortunately, Mr Beheshti had misinterpreted the
content of the meeting.
My Lords, in a recently published joint annual report by Article
18 and other Christian organisations, the IRGC’s increasing
involvement in the crackdown against peaceful Christian
activities in Iran was highlighted for the second year in a row.
Other religious minorities and peaceful protesters also report
violent treatment during arrest and detention, as well as the
interference of the IRGC’s intelligence branch in court
proceedings to ensure harsher sentences against those who are
accused. I absolutely agree with the noble Lords who are pressing
for proscription, but given all of this, does the Minister agree
that we can and should do more, beyond proscription of the IRGC?
Will the Government consider offering a safe route scheme for
those from Iran who have suffered persecution in the form of
arrest and imprisonment on account of their faith?
(Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for her question; she raised
some interesting points. I remind noble Lords that the National
Security Bill, currently progressing through your Lordships’
House, will provide another significant toolkit in the fight
against individuals working for state entities like the IRGC in
this country—the Bill will criminalise a wide range of hostile
activities. I totally accept the right reverend Prelate’s points.
I cannot comment on safe routes for Iranian individuals, but I
will make sure that her views are taken back.
(CB)
My Lords, nothing happens inside Iran without the active
complicity and knowledge of the IRGC. Will the Minister take the
opportunity to condemn the “horrific wave” of executions, as
described by United Nations special rapporteurs on Friday,
including those of Majid Kazemi, Saeed Yaghoubi and Saleh
Mirhashemi that day, after they were reportedly subjected to
torture in prison? Does not this bloodlust and the IRGC go hand
in hand? As the noble Lord, , said, what more has to happen
before there is proscription?
(Con)
I absolutely join the UN rapporteur in condemning those
executions.
of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that the Government are keeping this
matter under active consideration because otherwise there would
be a real risk of a delay in a decision.
Noble Lords
Oh!
of Tredegar (Con)
The fact is that the Minister who answered the debate in the
other place on 12 January this year was unable to identify a
single reason why the IRGC should not be proscribed. My noble
friend the Minister is also unable to find a reason, and that is
because there is none. I respectfully urge my noble friend and
the Government to take the only decision available to them, and
to take it soon.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for his analysis.
(Con)
My Lords, what is the practical effect of proscription in the
case of the guard corps?
(Con)
That is a very good question. I am not entirely sure exactly what
else it would do above and beyond what we have already done with
the sanctions and so on.
(Lab)
My Lords, something very strange is going on in government. Most
organisations have meetings to discuss problems, and then come to
a conclusion and make a decision. It seems that the Government
have those meetings and discussions but make no decision—why is
that?
(Con)
I do not accept that characterisation. As I said, the discussions
of course continue, and as soon as there is something more to say
I am sure that we will be back to say it.
(Lab)
The exchanges we have heard are predictable and understandable,
but is it not important that, in all of these kinds of
discussions, we recognise the wider context in which violence
takes place in the Middle East, as it does relentlessly and
remorselessly? The wider context is the complete absence of any
significant development in the peace process between the Israelis
and the Palestinians. Until such time as that is at least moving
and there is some prospect of a two-state solution—whatever the
rights and wrongs of it—this kind of violence will continue.
(Con)
I am sure that the noble Lord is right, and I am more than happy
to condemn all violence in the Middle East, wherever it comes
from.
