National Security Act 2023 (Designated Bodies) Regulations 2026
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 16 Jul 2026 · 9 speeches · Official Report
Motion to Approve
Moved by
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 July be approved. Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (s pecial attention drawn to the instrument )
My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft instrument, which will see three bodies designated: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, and the GRU Volunteer Corps. I know that there has been significant interest in the House in this matter from both Opposition and Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that they will welcome these regulations today. Threats from foreign powers and their proxies have grown in scale and complexity. Designation is a powerful tool for disrupting state bodies and those acting in concert with them, and it sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling foreign power threat activity globally. The Home Secretary has determined that these three bodies are involved in foreign power threat activity and, as such, we propose to designate them under this new power, as I suggested we may do when the Bill, now an Act, went through Parliament recently. Before I give more detail of the bodies in question, it is worth setting out the legislative basis for this decision. For a body to be designated, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is involved in foreign power threat activity, as defined in the National Security Act 2023. The definition of foreign power threat activity covers the most serious offences in the Act, including espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. It also covers broader activity that constitutes a serious threat to life or public safety when...
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, we on these Benches fully support these designations. We consistently supported the proscription of the IRGC throughout the passage of the Crime and Policing Act, to which the Minister has referred. It had been our party policy for some years, as it had been the policy of the Labour Party before the last general election. Nevertheless, the Government preferred to pursue the course, as recommended by Jonathan Hall KC, of passing the National Security (State Threats) Act. We passed fast-track legislation through this Parliament extremely quickly, not without amendment but with careful, though fast, consideration. We are now improving it in a number of ways, with an eye to promised security legislation in the future. We on these Benches regarded the Act, and the amendments negotiated to it when it was before the House, as a good example of what can be achieved by cross-party co-operation. As the noble Lord explained, these designations respond to no fewer than seven attacks publicly claimed by the IMCR-the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, also known as Harakat-which is one of the bodies designated under these regulations. These were attacks within the United Kingdom that were linked to Jewish and Israeli communities. They included setting fire to the four Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March, and attacks on some Persian language media and their journalists. The designation of the IRGC also fulfils the promise made to the Jewish community by the...
My Lords, I am very happy to thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations today, after ongoing calls to do so, as he mentioned. We welcome that the Government are taking action to designate the three bodies after Parliament recently passed the National Security (State Threats) Act. We all know the risks that groups such as the IRGC pose towards the United Kingdom, and it is right that the new powers have been brought forward and used to prevent support for and assistance to state-linked bodies that pose such threats. The Minister will know that my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel welcomed the state threats Bill when it was before your Lordships’ House. However, they raised a number of concerns as to what we considered to be gaps in the Bill and what we think remain gaps in the Act now. It was disappointing to see the Liberal Democrats side with the Government in opposing our amendment to that Bill to criminalise the display of insignia and the wearing of uniforms associated with a designated body, as recommended by Jonathan Hall. It is unfortunate that, despite these regulations designating the IRGC, the flag of the IRGC-with its menacing fist holding aloft an assault rifle-will still be able to be prominently displayed on our streets. The Government have said that this is about diplomatic relations, but there are no diplomatic relationships with Russia or Iran, which are of course the mother countries of these organised...
Let me first welcome the noble Baroness back to the Home Office, even if it is only a temporary glitch. Let me also, through her, pass on my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their broad support for the Bill, which has allowed us, now that it is an Act, to effect these designations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for his broad support for the proposals before the House today. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, mentioned, this proposal came out of, first, a manifesto commitment to have a review, and secondly, Jonathan Hall KC bringing forward proposals on how we deal with state threats. I am grateful to His Majesty’s Official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for their support in helping get the state threats Act, as it now is, through Parliament. There were some challenges, there were some amendments which we accepted from the Liberal Democrats, and there were some amendments that I tried to explain from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but with that Act passed only a couple of weeks ago and Royal Assent granted only in the last 10 days or so, we have got to a position which has allowed us to bring forward these regulations for the reasons that I outlined. I think there was general consensus from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that this measure is required for these groups, for the reasons I outlined in my opening speech. I do not...
Motion agreed.
House adjourned at 5.50 pm.