National Security Act 2023 (Designated Bodies) Regulations 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 July be approved.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

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 carried out for, on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit a foreign power. If that test is met, the Home Secretary must then consider whether designation is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. She will take into account considerations of foreign policy and the impact on human rights as part of that decision-making process.

Once a group is designated, it will be a criminal offence within the UK’s jurisdiction to support a designated body, assist a designated body or obtain material benefits from a designated body. The penalties for these offences are imprisonment for up to 14 years and/or a fine. Where an individual commits certain espionage conduct or sabotage for a designated body, this can attract sentences of up to life imprisonment. Designation therefore enables law enforcement and intelligence agencies to disrupt designated bodies more effectively.

Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary will exercise this power only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence, including intelligence material and cross-government advice. A decision to designate is taken only after great care and consideration, and, as noble Lords will know, it must be approved by both Houses. It was approved by the House of Commons yesterday evening.

For the benefit of noble Lords I will give some explanation of the bodies in question. First, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a group that has been commented on significantly in this House over many months, before the gracious Speech and since. The long-standing threat posed by Iran and its proxies is no secret. We know that the Iranian intelligence services have established a pattern of targeting dissidents, Persian-language media organisations and journalists, as well as Jewish and Israeli communities globally.

The IRGC Quds Force and IRGC Intelligence Organisation, together with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, form the Iranian intelligence apparatus. As a key component of the Iranian state’s security apparatus, the IRGC is answerable directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader. Its role extends beyond conventional military operations and includes intelligence activity, the use of proxy actors and influence operations designed to advance Iranian state objectives. Activity linked to the IRGC has included threats to life and intimidation on UK soil, including credible plots to target individuals in the United Kingdom. The IRGC supports militant actors overseas and has been associated with cyber and other state threats activity aligned with Iranian state objectives. I know that noble Lords across all parts of this House have great concerns about that body.

The Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, otherwise known as Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyah, has publicly claimed seven attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities and Persian-language media, including an antisemitic attack on four Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March, a well-known arson attack that Members will be aware of. Sitting behind the IMCR were members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, who almost certainly directed IMCR attacks across Europe. These incidents, including acts of arson and intimidation, have caused real fear and distress and have had a profound impact on those communities. It is clear that this sustained activity directly threatens the safety and interests of the United Kingdom.

The GRU Volunteer Corps is Russia’s threat to the United Kingdom in a form that extends far beyond conventional military action to include state threats. Moreover, the Kremlin increasingly relies on proxy organisations to pursue its objectives, seeking to undermine our security while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. The so-called GRU Volunteer Corps is a clear example of that approach. It is not an independent force, nor a loose collection of volunteers; it is a proxy organisation operating under the direction and control of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service.

These formations are directed, supported and sustained by the GRU and are already operating across conflict zones, most notably in Ukraine in support of Russia’s illegal invasion. What we are seeing is a conscious attempt by the Russian state to blur the lines between military action, intelligence activity and criminality, using deniable forces to carry out sabotage, destabilisation and violence beyond its borders. This is not conjecture. It reflects a pattern of behaviour that underpins Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and that has been seen repeatedly across Europe, including here in the United Kingdom.

In 2024, two men organised an arson attack on a Ukrainian-owned business in east London. They acted on behalf of the Wagner Group—another proxy body that acts on behalf of the Russian state and is proscribed as a terrorist organisation. It is notable that large parts of the Wagner Group have also been absorbed into this so-called Volunteer Corps, which demonstrates the threat posed to the United Kingdom by this group.

With noble Lords’ consent, these bodies will be designated. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has decided that there is sufficient evidence for her to reasonably believe that each body is involved in foreign power threat activity and that designation is necessary to protect the United Kingdom. Designation will strengthen our ability to disrupt these bodies and those who support and facilitate them. More broadly, it sends a powerful message to any foreign power or proxy that the United Kingdom will not allow harm to ourselves or our interests, and that we will do whatever it takes to prevent such activity on our soil.

In conclusion, these bodies operate in different ways but are united in their role of endangering the safety and interests of the United Kingdom through violence, intimidation and destabilisation. I know this House has called for designation. It is a proportionate and necessary response, and this Government will continue to use every available tool to confront state threats wherever they arise. I commend this instrument to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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 intend to delay the House too long on those matters, because I think there is general consensus that we need to do this.

In discussions that we had with both Opposition Front Benches in the run-up to the state threats Bill before it became an Act, I tried to indicate that the Act was being proposed for a purpose, and today is the first use of that power for a definitive purpose. We wanted to have that Act at speed, and I pressed both Front Benches very hard to get it through speedily, because we needed, in my view and in the view of the Home Secretary, to get this legislation passed, both in the House of Commons, which rises today, and in the House of Lords, where we face another week in Parliament, as quickly as possible. That means that this designation, once I sign the order, if it is agreed by this House, can be put into effect fairly soon. For all those reasons, I welcome the support of both Front Benches, including their support for further action, as the noble Baroness asked for.

In the gracious Speech, we promised a state security Bill later in the parliamentary Session. It will cover a number of issues, which the House will not expect me to go into because the Bill has not yet been published, but we discussed issues such as passports in Committee on the state threats Bill, and I gave indications that we wanted to take action on that. On the display of a Palestinian flag but not an IRGC flag, and the illegality of that, if a person expresses support in any way, and if their reasons for doing so are prejudicial to the safety of the United Kingdom, they will commit an offence. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance. That is different from the provisions in the Terrorism Act and reflects the reality of dealing with bodies that benefit from protection under international law. Individual decisions to arrest or charge will be for the police and prosecutors, but people who glorify terrorism will potentially face action in future.

The noble Baroness asked me about not criminalising the specific offence of the display or wearing of certain articles of clothing. I said during debates on amendments to the state threats Bill that we consider that the supporting of a designated body offence is wide enough to capture the display or wearing of articles when this is done for a prohibited purpose. It was therefore, in our view, unnecessary to create a specific offence, while also avoiding potential enforceability challenges by foreign state officials who are protected by international law. Whether we like that or not, that is the situation. I gave that explanation to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and I give it now to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. I hope that she will recognise that there will be further action downstream. As a former Minister in the Home Office, she will know that I cannot say what, I cannot say when, and I cannot give detail, but, if she remembers, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will concur with this, I could not say when or what or give detail about the regulations that I have brought forward today, but those regulations are here.

For the reasons I have mentioned and with gratitude for the support of both Opposition Front Benches, I condemn—no, not condemn; it has been a long day waiting for the debate—I commend these regulations to the House and hope Hansard will treat me kindly.

Motion agreed.