I beg to move, That this House has considered Iran. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the latest developments in Iran, the strait of Hormuz and the wider middle east. First, as a veteran myself, I know what a remarkable and difficult job Britain’s armed forces are doing. From our RAF pilots, who have flown thousands of hours and had more than 115 successful engagements, to our counter-unmanned aerial systems teams, who have helped to provide crucial protection to some of our key allies, our personnel are serving with great courage and professionalism. We are at a critical moment in a conflict that has profound implications for regional stability, the global economy and the safety of British citizens throughout the region, so today we say thank you—

Will the Minister give way?

We say thank you to every member of our military in the middle east, saving lives and working with international partners to defend our interests. Britain is proud of you.

The Minister points out that this is a critical moment. If it is so critical for the national importance of this country, why is the Prime Minister not here to lead this debate?

I think it is appropriate that we treat this debate with the appropriate seriousness and that the response comes from people who have this matter as part of their portfolio. I am grateful to be able to speak to the House about the contribution of our brave armed forces personnel, which is why I did not allow the hon. Gentleman’s intervention while I was acknowledging their service. The situation across the region is fast moving. The US has continued to strike Iranian targets this week, including the port cities of Bandar Abbas and Bushehr. A key priority is to reduce Iran’s capacity to attack commercial shipping, after Iranian forces struck two UAE tankers in the strait of Hormuz, killing an Indian crew member and injuring eight others, and attacked facilities in Jordan and Bahrain. As a consequence of this volatility, oil prices continue to rise, with Brent crude climbing above $85 a barrel. Even as events unfold, this Government’s objectives are unchanged. We want to see a diplomatic solution to this crisis. We call for the resumption of a ceasefire and for the United States and Iran to resume negotiations on the memorandum of understanding, leading to a resolution in line with international law. We strongly condemn Iran’s reckless attacks this week on commercial shipping and its ongoing indiscriminate attacks against our partners in the region, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Jordan, as well as Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia. During the crisis, the UK has surged air power into the Gulf, deploying the joint squadron in Qatar and sending additional jets to provide defensive counter-air to our partners.

The Minister mentions the attacks that Iran is carrying out. Will he join me in recognising that cyber-attacks are one of the consistent threats Iran has posed to the United Kingdom, and that we must ensure in any negotiation with Iran that those attacks are prevented and stopped?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I will go on to say, the things we should be concerned about are not limited to the manifestation of kinetic attacks within the region, but include the things that impact us here at home, such as cyber-attacks. We have reinforced regional partners’ air defence capabilities in Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, as well as embedding aerospace management experts, and deployed HMS Dragon to provide advanced air defence and maritime security capabilities, all of which demonstrates our strong commitment. Approximately one fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through the strait of Hormuz. When that narrow waterway is transformed into a theatre of conflict, working people across Britain and the world pay the price, both in higher fuel bills and energy bills and in wider costs to the economy.

I just wanted to explore the role of our destroyer in the Gulf a little further. The Minister says that it is part of air defence operations. Is it integrated within a system, or is our Royal Navy acting independently?

At the moment, the destroyer is part of a UK plan, but, should it be used later, it will form part of a broader design alongside the French—at the moment it is not playing that part. Perhaps I can explore that with the right hon. Gentleman later, or answer in greater detail as I progress. Across the globe, it is the poorest who feel the impact the most, so we will continue to work alongside our allies to restore freedom of navigation through the strait. The UK is playing its part through the multinational military mission—this is where HMS Dragon would play its role—providing reassurance to commercial shipping and conducting mine clearance operations. Of course, we continue also to protect British lives and interests across the region. However, it is not just British citizens and military personnel in the middle east who are endangered by Iran. Its far-reaching terror threat extends to the communities, streets and people of the United Kingdom, too. Our security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots on British soil between October 2024 and October 2025, targeting journalists, dissidents and Jewish people living in this country. Britain treats that threat with the gravity it demands. We have sanctioned hundreds of Iranian individuals and entities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. In May, we unveiled a package of measures directly targeting those who threaten security on our streets. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary announced sanctions on the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right. Otherwise known as HAYI, this is the organisation that publicly claimed responsibility for seven attacks at locations in the UK linked to Jewish and Israeli communities and Persian-language media, including the despicable antisemitic arson attack on four ambulances in Golders Green in March. These are some of the terrible consequences that this war has had in Britain. State actors like these have been working to create division and manipulate young people, including those in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. We must not let them succeed in damaging our social cohesion.

The Minister speaks eloquently about the threat that the Iranian regime poses to the freedom of religion and safety of Jewish people and others in Britain. As I am sure he is aware, people in Iran do not enjoy freedom of religion or belief, such as Iranian Christians, some of whom I have met in Morecambe and Lunesdale. The Baha’i people are also routinely persecuted, and people who refute religion and become apostates are treated abhorrently. I want to put on the record the work of Faith to Faithless in supporting people in the UK. Does he agree that every person in Iran deserves freedom of religion and belief and to live in safety?

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention. It is important to note that that regime does not respect freedom of religion. Back here at home, every one of us, regardless of our faith or religion, must stand up for others.

First, may I welcome the Minister to his place, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so? I also thank him for the contribution he made in his former life, and the expertise and experience he brings to this Chamber. I very much welcome the Government’s proscription of the IRGC. Indeed, if I had it my way, I would eliminate the IRGC in its totality so that it would not be a problem for anybody else in this world, but that is not something that the Government can do by themselves. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will go further and seize all the IRGC’s assets in this country, including its buildings, banks and accounts, and can he confirm that the IRGC will be held accountable for its actions—for the people it has murdered, the children it has killed, and the women that have been raped and violated? Are the Government collecting the evidence necessary to ensure that those people who are responsible will be accountable for their actions in this world? I know that they will be accountable in the next world, because they will be in hell burning, but before that arrives for them, I would like to see them held accountable in this world.

What a great privilege it is to receive my first intervention from the hon. Gentleman. It is important that he gets a full answer to those questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) will cover them adequately in his closing remarks.

On behalf of the Conservative Front Bench, I place on record our absolute agreement with the Minister’s tribute to all our armed forces personnel serving in the middle east. Will he briefly look around and confirm that yet again when we are debating defence and security, including threats to UK citizens in this country from Iran, there is no Reform Member of Parliament present in the Chamber of the House of Commons to participate?

I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for making that point. If we are going to tackle division, we must all be present and contribute respectfully to these debates. I am very grateful for his remarks. I will not take any more interventions, because I am fast running out of time—[Hon. Members: “More!”] We have long been clear that any nation that poses such a terror threat abroad, that murders thousands of its own people and brutally suppresses dissent at home, must never acquire a nuclear weapon.

Open-source media has highlighted that when the US and Israel struck Iran many months ago, a certain target was destroyed in Tehran. Overnight, a large proportion of Scottish independence media died, which underlines the point about division and protecting the right to self-determination and democracy in this country. Through social media and other means, we are allowing foreign states to play into political division in the United Kingdom. Could my hon. Friend give some insight as to what we are doing collectively to protect against those threats?

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his powerful intervention and the point he makes. I took a deviation in my speech to highlight how these threats are manifesting on our streets, and it is incredibly upsetting that, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) pointed out, there is an absence of certain political voices within the Chamber at this moment. When we talk about the threats to our nation or the threat of war, we are speaking about nations that are acting within our country to cause division between people and communities and to attack our democracy and our state. We need every voice in the Chamber to contribute to the fight for the fundamentals of our democracy. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that Iran’s total enriched uranium stockpile now stands at 48 times the limit set under the joint comprehensive plan of action. Its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium exceeds 10 IAEA significant quantities—the threshold beyond which the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear device cannot be excluded. Iran does not have a credible civilian justification for enrichment at this level. The international community is not naive about what the stockpile represents. Any final deal must address these concerns comprehensively and verifiably. The UK stands ready to assist, alongside our European partners. We have the technical knowledge, diplomatic relationships and institutional experience to help bridge these gaps. We are ready to work with the US, Iran and the IAEA to achieve a final deal, including lifting relevant sanctions if Iran takes verifiable steps to end its nuclear programme.

We want the Minister to go on and on, so we will keep the interventions going. On diplomatic relations, I put on record my condolences on the death of His Highness the Father Amir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. I thank the Minister for the UK’s leadership in countering Iranian actions in both the strait of Hormuz and this country. I also put on record my own thanks to service personnel who are acting in the region in our interests.

My hon. Friend is a campaigner for the personnel at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the things that the Department stands for. He understands the importance of soft power and the relationships he refers to. It is important that we advocate for the Department and the wonderful work that it does, so it is a great privilege to open this debate alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, who is one of its most powerful servants. This is a complex and fast-moving conflict that has the potential to escalate. We should not be distracted from our fundamental priorities: to encourage the resumption of negotiations and a ceasefire; to restore freedom of movement in the strait of Hormuz; to deliver the agreements set out in the memorandum of understanding; and to protect British people and interests and stand firmly with our allies. These measures, I believe, are the right ones to dial down hostilities and help us find an enduring, secure solution. I look forward to hearing the contributions of colleagues across the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

First, I welcome the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) to his place on the Front Bench. I also welcome this debate, because there are few greater responsibilities of Government than protecting the security of our country and defending Britain’s interests abroad in what is an increasingly dangerous world. I want to start by touching on the live situation, which remains precarious. It is clear that over the past week or so, escalation has spiralled because of Tehran’s serious violations of the ceasefire. We have seen Iran once again illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz, violating Oman’s sovereignty in doing so, and striking our allies including Bahrain and Kuwait. They must stop. Full freedom of navigation must be restored in the strait of Hormuz, and the onus is on Iran to comply. Tolls are not the way forward, and we do welcome the decision by the US not to pursue this. But the question is: what will Britain contribute to efforts to secure the opening of the strait? Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) pressed the Foreign Secretary on that, and few answers were forthcoming. These are serious matters. I hope the Minister will be able to share more detail about what a multinational mission, which the Government have talked much about, could look like. Iran is not simply another difficult state; it is a terrorist regime that has brutalised its own people, destabilised an entire region, armed terrorist organisations, pursued nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community, supplied drones for Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine and threatened Britain directly through hostile activity and terror plots on our own soil. The regime in Tehran has spread fear through its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. It has imprisoned, tortured and murdered its own citizens for daring to demand basic freedoms. It has exported antisemitism, sponsored terrorism and sought to intimidate democratic nations, including our own. No one in the House should be under any illusion about the nature of the Iranian regime or the threat that it continues to pose. An end to the current conflict must address the reasons it began in the first place. We want a settlement that makes Britain safer, protects our close security allies and offers the Iranian people hope of a future free from the repression of the terrorist regime in Tehran.

My right hon. Friend is making an important and powerful point about recognising exactly what the Iranian regime is. Does she agree that Members of this House—and certainly some of the party members they represent—who, with their warped sense of political priorities, praise the actions of the Iranian regime as somehow justified, should be utterly condemned and have no place in our political discourse or discussion in this country?

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. Though we have tough days in this place, it is important that we remember why we are here and hold respect for one another. Deep down, we also understand the background to some of this conflict, so I agree totally with him. It is important that we use the right language in this place and have the right tone in these often difficult but important debates. In all this, we need to address the causes of the conflict, not just seek to pause it, and recognise that any lasting settlement must deal with Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terrorism and its willingness to use instability as a tool of statecraft, particularly on the strait of Hormuz. That is what we are facing and dealing with. Of course, Britain must play its part to help ensure that Iran can never again use the strait of Hormuz as a bargaining chip with which to threaten international security and hold the global economy to ransom. Those are the outcomes that Britain should be working towards. What are the Government’s objectives? What does the Minister believe success looks like? What support—militarily, diplomatically or otherwise—have the Government provided to our American allies during this latest phase of the conflict? What guarantees has Britain secured that Iran’s nuclear programme will be dismantled? Will we even be at the table like we were in 2015 for the joint comprehensive plan of action?

The right hon. Lady raises the JCPOA and the negotiations with Iran 10 or so years ago. Do you think we are closer to a nuclear negotiation today than we were back then? Do you think that negotiating at the start would have been a better approach in this conflict?

Order. Before the shadow Minister answers the question, may I remind the hon. Gentleman that “you” is not used in the Chamber because that is directed at me? I am sure he is interested in what I think about these matters, but he may be more interested in what the shadow Minister thinks.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is interested in what I have to say on these matters. He makes an important point, but in 2026 we are not dealing with what we faced 10 years ago, hence my asking the Minister what guarantees Britain has secured on ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme will be dismantled. What commitments have been obtained on curbing Iran’s support for Hezbollah, the Houthis and other terrorist proxies? What mechanisms are there for monitoring and enforcing any agreement? What role has Britain actually played in shaping those outcomes? A ceasefire is not in itself a strategy. Peace is not measured simply by words on paper; it must be measured by whether Britain’s security is stronger, whether our allies are safer and whether Iran’s capacity to threaten the world has genuinely been reduced. On every one of those tests, Ministers have serious questions to answer to this place. The Iranian regime has already demonstrated how fragile any pause in fighting remains. The regime has continued to threaten international shipping in the strait of Hormuz and to menace our allies across the Gulf, where, I remind the House, there are also thousands of British nationals. When British assets were placed at risk, what was the Government’s response? When commercial shipping came under threat, where was Britain’s leadership? When our allies looked to one of their oldest security partners for reassurance, what practical support did the Government provide? Britain has historically played a leading role in Gulf security. We have built partnerships, provided reassurance and helped shape the international response to threats in the region, yet throughout this crisis there has been a growing sense that Britain has been reacting to events, rather than helping to determine them.

rose—

I will give way. I am being generous today.

I thank the right hon. Lady. She talks about the UK’s military support in the conflict. I wonder whether she is suggesting that we should have provided support to the Americans during the initial attacks, as some Opposition Members suggested, or whether she is talking about other types of military support. If she could make that clear, that would be helpful.

I think we always make our position very clear on all these matters. This debate is about the situation we face today in the Gulf, and it is for the Opposition to ask the Government the questions, and for the Government to explain the answers to the Opposition. We will all have to sit in the Chamber and wait for the winding-up speeches at the end of the debate. Our allies once looked to Britain as a reliable and dependable partner; increasingly, that confidence is being tested. This is a time for action, not words. The strait of Hormuz is not simply a regional concern, but one of the world’s most strategically important waterways. Its security matters to global trade, to international energy markets and to British families who feel the impact when instability drives up prices. Iran cannot be allowed to use access to this vital route as leverage against the international community whenever it seeks concessions—preventing that must be a central objective of British foreign policy—yet where is the Government’s strategy to ensure that never happens again? Where is Britain’s influence in shaping the future security architecture in the Gulf? Where is our leadership? Instead, Ministers have too often appeared to be spectators, rather than participants. At precisely the moment when Britain should have been strengthening alliances and advancing our national interests, the Government have appeared distracted and uncertain. That matters, because influence is not something that Britain is automatically entitled to; it is something that we must earn. It depends on credibility, capability and the confidence of our allies that Britain will stand alongside them when it matters most. That confidence has been weakened by uncertainty over an unfunded defence investment plan, and by a Government who too often appear reactive, rather than decisive. Nowhere is that clearer than in the Government’s handling of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The decision to designate the IRGC as a foreign power state threat is welcome, but it is long overdue. It is not simply another military organisation; it is the principal instrument through which the Iranian regime suppresses dissent, exports violence and spreads extremism. It has crushed protests inside Iran, financed terrorism abroad, facilitated sanctions evasion, spread propaganda, intimidated dissidents living here in Britain and repeatedly threatened our national security.

Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that everything she has just accused the Government of not doing is exactly what her Government did not do for 10 years? The IRGC is exactly the same now as it was when her party was in government. I am not a great supporter of the Labour Government, as Labour Members will be quick to say, but please do not take the moral high ground when it comes to proscribing the IRGC.

The hon. Gentleman from the SNP makes a very interesting point, but what did his party ever do on that front? I also remind Government Members that they have been in power for two years. They have had plenty of time. It is no good always throwing the “14 years” argument at us. They have had two years. Our security and intelligence services deserve enormous credit for disrupting Iranian-linked plots against individuals in this country, but they should not be expected to carry that burden without the full backing of Government. Earlier this year, when protesters in Iran faced violent repression at the hands of the IRGC, the Opposition repeatedly offered to work constructively with Ministers to pass emergency legislation. Those offers were ignored, valuable time was lost and the threat continued. The Government must explain how the designation will be enforced. How will those acting on behalf of the IRGC in Britain be identified? How will Iranian financial networks operating in the United Kingdom be dismantled? What steps are being taken to prevent our financial system from being used to launder funds linked to the Iranian regime and its terrorist activities? When will Ministers finally be able to say that Iran’s corrosive influence inside Britain has properly been disrupted? Announcements alone do not keep the public safe; enforcement does. We should not forget the Iranian people. Our argument has never been with them; indeed, no people have suffered more at the hands of their regime than the people of Iran. Millions of brave Iranians have risked everything in pursuit of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Many have paid with their liberty, and many with their life. Tens of thousands were slaughtered earlier this year simply for wanting the basic freedoms that we enjoy.

May I add to what my right hon. Friend has said? I have constituents who are victims of the Iranian regime, and who have gone through torture. Victims of torture carry the scars, as do those mourning and victims of repression, as my right hon. Friend said.

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that we remember the victims and their families. That should push us to continue to seek not just answers, but actions and outcomes. Britain should always stand with those who seek freedom, and against those who seek to crush it. The conflict has exposed some uncomfortable truths for us at home. National security depends on economic strength. Every threat to the strait of Hormuz sends shockwaves through global energy markets; every escalation in the Gulf has consequences for British businesses and households; and every hostile state that we seek to deter requires us to have credible military capability that supports our diplomacy. That is why Britain must match its global ambitions with the necessary resources. We continue to believe that Britain should spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. The threats facing our country have changed, and our response must reflect that reality. The crisis underlines why energy security is national security. We should strengthen our domestic energy resilience, expand secure sources of supply and reduce our dependence on hostile regimes that seek to weaponise energy for political gain. A stronger economy, greater energy security and stronger national defence are not separate objectives. They are essential parts of the same national strategy of making Britain more resilient, more self-sufficient and better able to defend our interests in an increasingly dangerous world. Iran remains a grave threat. Its ideology has not changed, its hostility towards Britain has not changed and its sponsorship of terrorism has not changed. We should not judge success simply by whether the missiles have stopped for today, but by whether the regime’s ability to threaten us is weakened, Britain’s security is stronger, our allies are safer and the Iranian people are closer to freedom. That requires more than expressions of concern and carefully worded statements; it requires a Government with clear objectives, a coherent strategy and the determination to use British influence in defence of Britain’s national interest. That is the leadership that has been so clearly missing throughout this crisis.

It is a day of sad farewells, and I will add to them by saying a very sad farewell from all of us across the House to Margaret and Godfrey in the Tea Room, who are leaving soon. I did not expect to be so emotional, but here we are. I want to say something very clear and simple about what the Iran war means for us. It shows us that our affordability and security crises are intertwined, and that they lean on each other. More than that, it shows us that while we deal with those crises through policy, we also need a political vision that can unite us as we face the most important and dangerous Parliament in almost a century. Since the Iran war started, we have seen oil and gas prices rise significantly. Oil prices are up by around 30%, and gas prices are up by 70%. The longer the strait remains closed, the worse that will get. What does that mean for us at home? It means higher prices and less affordable lives, but more than all that, it means more anger and fury on our streets. As people become unable to afford decent lives, they get angry at the system and angrier at us in this place. If we do not make their lives affordable, we cannot expect them to have a stake in, or defend, our nation. Only by ensuring that every single person has a reason to believe in this country and this place, and only by making lives affordable, can we ensure that we defend ourselves at home. We cannot ask people to risk or give up their life for a country that does not guarantee a decent life to them or their children. As for our security crisis, we see that the far more unstable and dangerous world that we face is one in which the economy and affordability get worse. We are dependent on fossil fuels sold by dictators, including those in the most dangerous parts of the world, and that lack of security in energy abroad hits us here at home. The world is changing before our eyes. America’s eyes are no longer focused on Europe as much as they used to be; they are turning to Asia and the middle east. It is clear to us in European NATO, and it should be clear to us in this House, that we must take more steps to defend ourselves. We as individuals all have a responsibility to state very clearly that we must defend this nation. The only way we prevent war is by preparing for one. It is the only way that we keep this country and our constituents safe for this generation and generations to come. Finally, we see a nation that is far more divided and angry than ever before, partly because people cannot afford a decent life, but also because when they turn on their screens, they see war in the middle east, wildfires across the globe and a world that is far less secure and stable. They do not believe in us because they do not see a way for us to provide a decent future for them. That is on us to fix.

I only intervene on the hon. Gentleman because he said “finally”, so I assume that he is coming to the end of his speech. [Interruption.] Apparently not. Perhaps he is about to come on to this, but I have not heard him yet condemn Iran for its actions, both against its own people and across the region. He talks about destabilisation and war. Iran is the catalyst and the instigator of the destabilisation not just in Iran, but in Israel, Yemen and further afield. Will he not condemn Iran for all that it is doing?

Short answer: yes. Longer answer: I think everyone across this House would give that condemnation as well. The latest conflagration, by our understanding, is that Iran struck a tanker, and that led to the end of the ceasefire. That is making us far poorer at home, but it is also making the region less secure and stable. I say this to every Member in the House: although we disagree strongly and deeply, a lot unites us at this moment. Members from across the House were able to unite to face challenges a century ago, and I hope that we can do exactly the same, as we should, now and in the future.

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He makes some powerful points. He talked about people noticing what is going on. Will he explore that in his speech? I know that he is excellent at responding while on his feet. People can and cannot see things; when there was a cyber-attack on M&S, its shelves emptied, so people would have been able to see the direct consequence of a cyber-attack on a supermarket. They did not see it, however, because they just went to the next supermarket. Will he expand on how we make the public see the threat?

I think we have to explain it to the public, although they also saw the attack on Jaguar Land Rover and they understand the attack on sea cables. They are seeing it on the news more and more often. They understand that Russia is a threat, and they see the prices at the pump. What is far more dangerous for us is that this slow-building crisis is much harder to deal with than a rapid one. The idea that we have war in Europe is now something we accept. Since 1945, we have not really had to take on board the idea that we can redraw borders by force, that military action can once again be here and that NATO can be tested. This is a new thing for us, so we have to tell the public both that war is on our doorstep and that resilience is now far more important. For us, there is clearly a path forward, with two sets of policies: first, make life affordable; secondly, defend our nation. In terms of making life affordable, there is an immediate challenge. We are seeing higher fossil fuel prices leading to higher energy costs at home, and food and fertiliser getting more expensive. There are ways we can get costs down, and some of them are a bit easier than others. We can invest in clean energy and we can do direct reductions in energy bills, but for other things, like food, it is more difficult for us. That is why we need the second policy. We must also create good jobs in every single part of this country, but especially in those post-industrial areas where there have not been enough good jobs for an incredibly long time. Those are the places that are turning away from us and, indeed, from most of the Opposition parties as well.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out that there is a dichotomy here. His Government have come forward with a defence investment plan that is £5 billion short. Given his esteemed career as an economist, will he tell us where that money is going to come from? What is he suggesting to his Defence Secretary and the future Prime Minister about how to stop that gap? As he rightly pointed out, the cost of living is going up for the individual taxpayer.

First, I would like to thank the hon. Member for calling me an esteemed economist while the Whips are sitting on the Front Bench. He will appreciate that I am not going to annoy any Chancellor by putting forward any kind of tax rises today, but there is a clear commitment on the Labour Benches to fund the defence investment plan. The hon. Member is right to say that, fundamentally, we need to fund defence in this country, because the only way we can prevent war, and live up to our promise to ourselves, is to ensure that we prepare for one. Part of that is about funding, which is important, but it is also about the defence economic strategy. It is not just about the munitions and drones we are producing today; it is about how we scale that up in the case of a conflict. How do we make a conflict unthinkable because people know that the British state would stand with our NATO allies to win it convincingly?

The defence chief said that we needed £28 billion for defence, but the hon. Gentleman’s Government have brought forward £15 billion, of which there is a £4.7 billion shortfall. Therein lie the gap and the problem, because there is a difference between what we will need to achieve that ability to deter and actually providing it. What are his thoughts on that?

I have every confidence that we will prevent war by preparing for it, and that we are going to fund that, but beyond the funding, which is important, how do we ensure that we can achieve the scale-up that we need? How do we show that we can defend this country? The hon. Member and I may have a back and forth, but I think we agree that we need to help to defend this nation. There are Members of this House, however—they are obviously not in their seats today—who do not feel the same way. There are Members of this House who want to divide us, who are far too pally with Putin and who want to see us become weaker and more divided, because that is how they get what they want. They are part of an unholy alliance of ethnocrats and, as we are seeing now, cryptobillionaires. They want to see anger and division on one side and tax cuts for their billionaire mates on the other. Those are the people that all of us in the House today stand against, whether they are arguing with a bin or not. This is where we are. A House divided against itself cannot stand, and nor can our nation. The only way we can ensure that we meet the moment presented to us by this war in Iran, and indeed by all conflicts around the world, is by first making life affordable for every single person so that they have a stake in this nation, and also by securing our nation and making it safer, in order to get costs down here at home. We on the Labour Benches know now what we have always known: that the only way we can meet this moment is together, that we are more than the sum of our parts and that can we achieve affordability and security through our common endeavour. Together we will, but divided we absolutely will not.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The picture in Iran remains volatile. We have seen renewed military strikes, threats against ships in international waters and rhetoric that keeps ratcheting upwards. Put together, that is the kind of mix that tips into a spiral that nobody in this House wants. The Liberal Democrat position has not shifted on this issue, and our leader has been consistent in this House. We opposed escalating the situation militarily from the start, because it contravenes international law and because middle eastern conflicts have a track record of running on long after the promises made at the outset, and of leaving the region worse off than it was before. What is needed now is diplomacy and restraint, backed by a real commitment to keep the situation from tipping back into something far worse. The UK Government should be working every diplomatic channel they have to get Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table as soon as possible. Let me be clear: this was an illegal war started by a reckless and irresponsible President. Trump, together with Benjamin Netanyahu, led the US and Israel into this war without a plan. As a result, NATO is less secure and Trump has been humiliated by his arrogance. None of this excuses Tehran, however. The regime bears real responsibility for the instability we are seeing. It is funding terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, targeting shipping lanes, holding foreign nationals without cause and crushing dissent at home. Iran can also never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but that goal must be achieved through diplomacy not through force of arms. Roughly a fifth of the world’s traded oil moves through the strait of Hormuz, so anything that threatens shipping there shows up quickly in household budgets here in Britain, not just in the Gulf. Iran’s attacks on commercial vessels, on top of President Trump’s now aborted proposal to start charging for passage through the strait, have made already jittery markets more nervous still. Freedom of navigation is foundational to how trade works around the world. Shipping lanes should not be turned into leverage. The strait needs to stay open, secure and governed by international law, full stop. This Government should be co-ordinating with allies to steady the situation, keep commercial shipping protected and bring down the odds of things escalating further at sea. The fallout does not stay offshore.

The hon. Gentleman said that we should be keeping shipping protected. How does he see that happening? What does he think needs to be protected, and from what area?

Primarily, shipping needs to be protected from attacks in the strait of Hormuz. The first way to do that is to reach a settlement that keeps shipping safe in the strait of Hormuz and, as I said in my previous point, that is why we need to reach a diplomatic solution. A military solution is not going to keep shipping safe, because ultimately, shipping companies assess things by risk and as long as shipping is held to be at any risk in the strait of Hormuz, we will not see a resumption of previous trade levels. The fallout does not stay offshore. When oil prices climb, it is British households—our constituents—who feel it in transport costs, in the weekly shop and in energy bills. I hear daily from constituents who are feeling the financial pressure. Families who are already stretched thin do not need another external shock landing on top. The Government should not just be waiting for markets to calm down on their own. There are concrete steps available, including cutting fuel duty, bringing rail fares down, keeping on pushing bus fares lower and scrapping VAT on electric vehicle charging. All of that would ease the everyday cost of getting around. This moment should also sharpen the case for building real energy resilience at home.

Does the hon. Gentleman have an estimate of how much those policies would cost?

Yes, of course. All our proposals are fully costed, and if the hon. Gentleman would like me to do so, I can send him more information on how we would pay for them. Every time that instability somewhere else sends a shockwave through our economy, it is a reminder of why weaning ourselves off volatile fossil fuel markets is squarely in Britain’s interests. I would also like to raise the situation facing British citizens held in Iran. Lindsay and Craig Foreman have now been in Evin prison for over a year, and today there are reports that Craig’s sentence has been extended by a further two years. There are reports of hunger strikes and conditions that remain harrowing. No British national should be used as a bargaining chip in a geopolitical stand-off. Their continued detention is not acceptable, and the Government need to treat their release as an urgent diplomatic priority, working with international partners to get them home.

The hon. Gentleman has just outlined a number of ways that Tehran does not respect international law and uses human capital as a bargaining chip, but in the same breath, he mentions that he does not see that there needs to be a military solution and that he believes that somehow Iran can be brought to the table to get a diplomatic solution. How can those two things be compatible?

It is a good challenge. Obviously, what I am talking about is a long-term solution. The military option has been tried. The United States, the pre-eminent military power on Earth, has expended a huge number of missiles and other military assets to try to bring Iran to a position that it wants it to be in. This has clearly not worked: Iran is still attacking shipping in the strait, and we are still seeing instability in the area. It is clear that the military option has not succeeded, and if the Americans cannot do it, frankly probably nobody can. We need to go back to the negotiating table to try to find a diplomatic solution, which I accept has so far been out of reach, but if we want a stable solution in the long term, it will come through diplomacy, not military means. I welcome the recent decision by the Government to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under the National Security Act 2023, but a designation on paper matters only if it is backed by enforcement. This House will expect the Government to act firmly against anyone on UK soil intimidating dissidents, running cyber-attacks on British institutions or acting at the bidding of a hostile state. Finally, a word on Britain’s role: the Government have said that UK bases have been used by the US only for narrowly defined defensive purposes. That distinction is worth holding on to, and this House deserves ongoing clarity about exactly when and how British territory might be used if things escalate further. Our alliances matter, but they do not relieve the Government of a duty to make their own judgment calls on how sovereign UK territory is used. The priority now has to be stopping any slide into a wider war in the region, starting with the rebuilding of diplomatic channels, keeping shipping lanes protected and holding the line on international law, while backing our allies without handing over our own judgment calls. Above all, it means remembering that every step further into escalation has real costs for civilians in the middle east and families here at home. It is a reminder of the limits of armed force and of the fact that one of this country’s greatest strengths is our soft power—diplomatic, financial, cultural. Britain has influence that it can use to cool this situation down, rebuild some diplomatic momentum and help get the region and the wider world to the stability that everyone so desperately needs.

Life for ordinary Iranian people is getting ever more difficult. Right now, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. There is the brutally repressive and theocratic regime’s systemic economic mismanagement and rampant corruption, and an inhumane and suffocating package of US sanctions that hurt the Iranian people long before any regime official feels the pain caused. The two devastating waves of US-Israeli military strikes in just over a year have pushed the country to the brink, making virtually every aspect of daily survival an enormous struggle for most ordinary Iranians. The latest developments in relation to the rapidly re-escalating conflict between Iran and the United States are incredibly alarming. This could easily become an all-out full-scale war with devastating consequences, not just for the people of Iran but for the wider middle east region and, of course, for hundreds of millions more, with the economic and environmental impacts reaching across the globe. By actively seeking to assert unilateral US hegemony, the Trump Administration are dragging the middle east and the wider world into a perilous situation that is worsening by the day. It is abundantly clear that diplomacy and international law are in tatters. We can see this by three recent developments. The first is the illegal and indiscriminate US-Israeli 40-day military bombardment of Iran. That was following the equally illegal and unwarranted 12-day barrage of the country in June 2025. Both were launched when the Iranian Government were sat around the negotiating table. Secondly, there is the rapid unravelling of the subsequent ceasefire under Trump’s maximalist attitude, with his having stopped the military campaign which his Administration had started in the first place without agreement or approval internationally. Thirdly, there is US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declaring the launch of a campaign systematically to dismantle the International Criminal Court under the pretext that that global tribunal is interfering with US military and law enforcement operations, and thereby threatening US sovereignty. There is no doubt that we are entering a phase in which the US feels emboldened. It is giving short shrift to the basic tenets laid down in the UN charter and in international law. Iran is the arena in which it can wage war at any time, all while demanding that independent and sovereign countries such as the UK fall into step and provide direct support without question. If there is no consideration of entering a protocol of diplomacy, that is the abandonment of international law and basic humanitarian principles. Despite the rhetoric of those on both sides of the conflict claiming some sort of major victory, the reality remains that Iran, and primarily the beleaguered Iranian people, have suffered immense loss and devastation, while the Trump Administration have clearly failed to achieve any of his constantly shifting objectives. We now witness a new cycle of rapidly worsening tit-for-tat military action, with the Islamic Republic Government targeting commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz and US assets in neighbouring countries, and the US launching blunt-force bombardments, primarily of cities and areas along Iran’s southern coast, but also elsewhere in the country. Innocent Iranian civilians are the casualties of war. The Trump Administration on the one hand cite the illegality of Iran’s attempt to exact a toll on the strait of Hormuz—“It’s an international waterway”—but on the other talk about exacting their own 20% tariff on traffic through the strait. That blatantly demonstrates the US imperialist aims regarding control of the strait and the wider Persian gulf. It is completely in line with the various recent stances the US has taken with regard to Venezuela, Greenland, the Panama canal and even neighbouring Canada. This should serve as a stark warning to all countries, particularly those attempting to appease Trump by accelerating their own militarisation in compliance with his diktats, as was recently demonstrated at the NATO gathering in Turkey.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that European defence spending is growing only because of the President of the United States, even though several Presidents of the United States have demanded increased defence spending? The current President has actually achieved it, but Europe really does have to increase its defence spending. Since the first Trump presidency, it has been increased by almost €1 trillion, but that had to be done. Can I clarify with the hon. Gentleman whether he is criticising Europe for doing what Donald Trump asked, because Donald Trump is not the first US President to demand more European defence spending?

Trump is absolutely throwing his weight, his heft and his influence politically and militarily across various parts of the globe. His behaviour is in contravention of international law. It is heinous in the extreme, and he is a danger to—to use a broad phrase—world peace. There is no doubt about that. However, Ukraine and other parts of the world, such as Kashmir, are very much on the brink. We have seen mass displacement and ethnic cleansing of millions. We have seen—I may be wrong, and pardon me if I am—the biggest humanitarian disaster in Sudan. When we amalgamate all those crises in various bits of the world, we see that the world is on the brink—it is on a precipice. I have often quoted the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in this place, and it says: “It is now 85 seconds to midnight.” That is the closest the world has ever been to annihilation. A lot of that is down to environmental aspects, but it is also down to politics, politicians and the political decisions that are made in various parts of the globe. I would like to think that there would be the international leadership to say, “No.” The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of my position on military spending: I think we have higher priorities than that because our nation has crumbling infrastructure, some 3.5 million people and rising using food banks, and 14% of children living in food insecurity. Those are the issues in my inbox and those are the things that I want to tackle.

Building on the intervention by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), is the issue not as simple as this: in recent years, although Presidents have called on European Union countries and Britain to spend more on defence, we have not done so because America would fund the defence of the western world? President Trump is refusing to do that and is willing to look to other parts of the world to meet America’s strategic interests, and as a consequence, European countries are stepping up. Missing in this debate is the realisation by the Americans of what they gain by making a fair contribution to the defence of the west: they are not just burning their bridges with their allies, but harming their own defence. We ought to be emphasising that we will invest in our defence, but also that we will call out American behaviour where it is harming alliances and endangering US security.

My hon. Friend touches on something that I want to expand on further: spending for defence is not limited to weapons, drones and so on. I regret that my Labour Government have cut overseas development aid, which is an echo of what Donald Trump did with the US Agency for International Development package. Even the most marginal, minute bit of analysis appreciates that overseas development aid is an investment in more dangerous, volatile parts of the world to combat another hot political topic in this country at the moment: immigration. There is more than one way to spend to secure our borders. The UK must join the moral and principled calls for an immediate and lasting ceasefire, to be followed by a swift resumption of negotiations. We must also openly denounce and separate ourselves from the Trump Administration’s dangerous and hypocritical tactics, specifically Trump’s willingness to initiate and pursue illegal wars while claiming to negotiate. Above all, we must keep it in our minds that the vast majority of Iranian people desire peace and wish to rebuild their shattered country. This devastating war has set back the vital efforts of and the painstaking progress made by civil society and trade union activists, who have been valiantly struggling to achieve genuine freedom and social justice and to steer Iran towards a democratic, popular, fair and progressive transition. The future of Iran remains the sole preserve and remit of the long-suffering and long-struggling people of Iran themselves—and absolutely only them.

I will start by spending a few minutes on the context of why we are having this debate. It was rushed in by an emergency process, meaning that two scheduled Opposition day debates had to be cancelled. I was in the Chamber when the Leader of the House made that announcement and I listened very carefully. I would like to quote some of the important points he made when he justified the need for this debate: “I appreciate the frustration of Members when business is changed at short notice and when debates are postponed, but they will appreciate the importance of the House being able to discuss the escalating and fast-moving situation in the middle east before the recess.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 768.] He went on: “I remind the House that there is a crisis escalating across the middle east.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 770.] Further still, he said: “I point out to her and to Opposition Members that the situation in the middle east is unusual. We could well be in the midst of a greater conflagration in that region.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 771.] He went on: “I am talking about a situation that is erupting once again in the middle east.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 774.] He said: “Tomorrow’s business is being altered because we are on the verge of a conflagration”.—[Official Report, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 775.] He finished up by saying: “As I have said, the new Prime Minister will come to this House and set out his plans, but we deemed the crisis unfolding across the middle east to be of sufficient priority to change tomorrow’s business. I apologise that that is the case. Nobody wanted to do it, but that is what the importance of the situation demanded. I am sorry if the Opposition cannot get their head around that.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 778.] Gosh! As an Opposition MP, I heard what the Leader of the House said and thought, “Wow, I had better make sure I am at that debate.” I have only been in this place for six years, but when I walked in, I was slightly surprised that the Prime Minister was not leading the debate. Fair enough, he is stepping down, but given the urgency of the situation, I would have expected the Foreign Secretary to be leading the debate, especially as she was in the Chamber earlier, but no, she is not here. Fair enough, maybe she is doing the diplomacy, but what about the Defence Secretary? No, he is not here. Instead, we have a brand-new Minister, who I welcome to his place, opening the debate. Fair enough, the Department is busy, but I would have expected the Back Benches to be full. Instead, it is a pleasant surprise to find that I do not have a time limit on my speech, given that there are only six about Back Benchers here to speak in the debate.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about quality not quantity?

Amen. We on the Opposition Benches definitely agree with that. They do not make diamonds the size of bricks, and I intend to be erudite in what I say, but I still have a few more points to put on record.

My hon. Friend has clearly outlined the Government’s justification for having this debate. I welcome the new Minister to his place, but during his opening speech, did my hon. Friend pick up anything about why the debate had to happen with such urgency?

My right hon. Friend is right. It may well be that the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister has something more urgent to deal with, but I am yet to know what. I hope that in the wind-ups we will hear why this debate was needed so urgently, rather than Opposition day business, considering that it is a highly unprecedented move to prioritise a general debate over an Opposition day debate.

rose—

I will take another intervention.

I will try to make it a nice intervention as I will be speaking next and the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene on me. Does he welcome the experience that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), brings to this place? The Conservatives are often critical of Labour for not having enough business people talking in debates about business, so does he welcome the fact that both the Minister and the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), are gallant Members of this House? We should celebrate that fact.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point about how important it is for hon. Members to have lived experience when they come to this House, especially given that the Leader of the House said that Opposition day debates had to be cancelled to discuss this issue because it is the biggest crisis we face. The new Minister has only been in the Department for a couple of weeks, so he may not be as up to speed as the Defence Secretary—oh no, he is new as well—or perhaps the Foreign Secretary. Given the severity of what is facing the UK and the world, I thought the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) would be here. I even asked the Leader of the House if he would write to the right hon. Member for Makerfield to ask him to come to the debate, but alas, that seems to have gone amiss, but I am glad that we are having this important debate on Iran.

My hon. Friend has danced around the topic, but should we not place it on the record that we are now entirely clear why the Opposition business was cancelled yesterday and we are having a debate in which only two Labour Back Benchers are speaking—

Three!

Okay, three Labour Back Benchers. It is because the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and the Government decided that they did not want scrutiny of the new Prime Minister. It should be placed on the record that that is an absolute disgrace.

Au contraire—how could my hon. Friend possibly make that suggestion? The public will see what this looks like. Did Labour Back Benchers not listen to the words of the Leader of the House about how important this debate is? Clearly, other hon. Members are too busy dealing with something even more important. As I was saying, I am actually very pleased to be debating Iran, because the situation there has an impact on all aspects of our lives. The real question is not why we are debating the situation in Iran, but what decisions will be made by the man who will take charge in four or five days’ time. The Government are effectively asking us to debate a storm without understanding how the captain wants to steer us through it. That is why this debate matters. Let’s start with energy. We have heard from both sides of the House about the impact that the situation in Iran will have on energy. Will the new Prime Minister think about opening new licences? What is he going to do about the cost of living and fuel prices? We do not know the answer, but that is going to have a big impact. We know that the cost of energy is going up in this country, despite the Government’s promises at the election that it would fall, and we do not have an answer on what the right hon. Member for Makerfield will do. We are not 100% sure what he will do on net zero. We have just had an urgent question on resilience and possible blackouts in this country, but we do not understand what he will do. I am quite keen to understand the thoughts of the person who will be in charge in five days’ time on how to deal with that issue and grow resilience in the country. We have rightly heard from Members on the Government Benches about defence. There has been a lot of turmoil in defence under the Labour Government. We have lost a Defence Secretary. We have had a defence investment plan and, as I rightly pointed out earlier, it was expected to need £28 billion, but it has hit £15 billion. That is the funding that has been committed, but there is a gap there, isn’t there? We are £4.7 billion short. The right hon. Member for Makerfield will have to fill that gap in the handover, so how is he going to do it?

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, but he should not undersell this point. On top of the £4.7 billion that has not been approved by the Treasury, there is £10.7 billion that has to be generated from cuts to the Ministry of Defence budget and recycled. If we put them together, that is £15 billion, which is more than all the new money put together.

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I would love to put that question to the right hon. Member for Makerfield, if he was here, although I expect that it would have come more eruditely from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on the Front Bench. This is precisely my point: we do not know how that issue will be resolved. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who spoke before me, spoke about the humanitarian situation, which is hugely important. We have no idea what the decisions of the right hon. Member for Makerfield will be when it comes to dealing with international aid. After all, the current Prime Minister castigated the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for making cuts to international aid, then went and made cuts himself. The question is: will the new Prime Minister make the same decision? Will he hold to it or reverse it? I do not know—this Chamber does not know, and that is the point. The DIP hits our domestic policies too. The funding needed to defend our nation and ensure that we are protected from the likes of Iran must mean a capital expenditure cut, which will be 1% in health and 1% in education. Which frontline services in health are going? Which hospitals in the hospital programme will not be built? There was a negotiation between the US and the UK on pharmaceuticals in our trade deal. That was signed off with the US, which has a tendency to use leverage on us when it comes to international issues such as Iran and tariffs. We still do not know from this Government where that funding will come from, but it has to come from the frontline when it comes to the NHS. I would love to ask the new Prime Minister what that looks like and how he will fund the new drugs that we need, but, alas, we will sadly not get that opportunity. What does the 1% off education look like for school budgets? When it comes to education, especially when we have the likes of VAT on private schools, which has meant that 100 schools have closed and we have less teachers than when this Government came in—

Fewer!

Thank you—I will ensure Hansard corrects that. Let me point out that there are 1,900 fewer teachers under this Department for Education. I pose a question to the right hon. Member for Makerfield: how does that factor into the Iranian debate when it comes to defence and having to make cuts and other considerations? What about the reporting on Iran? The BBC has been reporting on Iran. What is the vision of the right hon. Member for Makerfield for the BBC, given that the end of the charter is coming up? We do not know the answers to these questions. We have not had the chance to ask him, and that chance was kiboshed yesterday. We could have extended parliamentary time to pose these very pertinent questions to him. On that point, Iran is one of the best reasons for having this debate, because it shows the scrutiny that we need to place on the incoming Prime Minister. I am shocked, I tell you, to hear from others outside this Chamber that the Government are falsifying information and changing the rules to be able to hide from scrutiny. They are using the fog of war to dull the light of scrutiny when it comes to the new Prime Minister. I will not have that, because I trust that they surely would not be that stupid or Machiavellian. Surely they would not make the naive decision to give the public the perception that the new Prime Minister does not want to take scrutiny when it comes to topics like Iran. We are going to go six weeks without the chance to debate the likes of Iran. We have had a red carpet rolled out for a coronation, but it could appear that the green Benches have been rolled up for those six weeks to allow the king in the north to come down to his United Kingdom. At some point, he will have to face his subjects and tell us how he will deal with domestic issues, international issues and Iran.

The hon. Member is 12 minutes into his speech, and we have not yet got into a debate about Iran. As he has said, there is a one-sided dimension to the US-UK relationship, in which the US is vastly stronger than the UK at this moment. If he were he Prime Minister—just imagine—and he had to deal with President Trump, what would the hon. Gentleman do to achieve his aims in trying to bring peace to the region, protect our cost of living and further the UK’s national interest?

I would come to the Chamber to answer questions from Parliament.

I call Chris Vince.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) took an intervention right at the end of his speech, which threw me. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)? As I have mentioned in this place before, he is very much a friend of Harlow. I welcome him to his place and thank him for opening this debate. I join him and others from across the House in paying tribute to our incredible armed forces personnel. I have said it a number of times in this House, but I am the son and grandson of armed forces personnel, and I know the huge sacrifice that they and their families make to keep us safe. My hon. and gallant Friend has done that on more than his fair share of occasions, and I thank him for that. I think Members across the House recognise the huge importance of debating these issues and the very concerning times that we live in—that is probably putting it mildly—and I cannot think of anybody else I would want to see debating them at the Dispatch Box, other than maybe my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who is sitting next to him. I take the points made by Opposition Members, and it is really important to absolutely condemn the Iranian regime. Let us not forget the way in which the regime has treated the people of Iran. It cannot be right that people in Iran are not able to express their religious beliefs and are not allowed to be the people they want to be. That is hugely important, and we should always frame any debate about Iran in those terms.

The hon. Gentleman has very clearly put on the record his own condemnation of Iran. I join him in his comments about the way that Tehran treats its own people, but Iran’s malign influence on civilian populations goes way beyond its own people. It funds terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, causing devastation and destruction to civilian populations across the region and beyond. Will he also condemn Iran for that?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I absolutely do, and I will add to that too. I wanted somehow to shoehorn in my support for the BBC World Service and ask Members to bear with me as I am going to do that, because it is also important that we recognise the malign influence of the Iran regime in this country. It was touched on earlier by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) in terms of the use of bad state actors and malign influences in social media. The BBC World Service is a really important tool in our armoury to tackle that disinformation. Going slightly off on a tangent, when the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring have been withdrawn from certain countries, Russian media sources have taken that space. It is important that we absolutely condemn the behaviour of the Iranian regime and its proxies, but also that we recognise the malign influence of the Iranian regime in this country, and we need to be prepared to tackle that.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the malign influence. Following some of the attacks in Iran and the Iranian people seeking to change their leadership, he will have seen the same report as I saw that when the Iranian Government turned off aspects of their domestic internet, hundreds of X accounts in this country, purporting to support far-right activity but also Scottish independence, fell silent. That is hugely important, and we need to look at how malign disinformation accounts in the UK are pursuing domestic political agendas in the UK and being funded and operated by non-existent people—bots—in Iran.

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I do not mean this response to sound jokey, but if I, for example, wanted to promote Harlow to be the UK capital of culture—sadly, we got rejected—the way to achieve that might not just be to directly say to people, “Come on, let’s get behind Harlow.” I am not suggesting that these bad actors are pro-Scottish independence necessarily, but you use views that are not your own to slowly manipulate people. [Interruption.] I see a Scottish National party Member on the Benches opposite. I am not trying to suggest that they are trying to promote Scottish independence—[Interruption.] Okay, maybe they are. What I am saying is that—[Interruption.] I have started an argument. If you want to try and—

Will my hon. Friend take an intervention?

Yes please.

I believe the point my hon. Friend is making is that the Iranian state is sponsoring these bot farms that are pumping out political points in the UK, which are a perfectly legitimate debate point, but are not underpinned by real people expressing real views. They are done in the most reductive way to stimulate dissent rather than discussion.

You are absolutely right, and if you want to put forward your—

Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps saying “you.” In this Chamber, “you” means me. Please do not ascribe those views of the Iranian Government to me.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I get really annoyed when others do that but I have just done it as well. I will move swiftly on and get to the main point of my speech. Since the beginning of the crisis, the Government and Prime Minister have been clear that our approach has been guided by what is in the best interests of the British people and our country’s security. Unlike some Members across the House, the Prime Minister was clear that we would not be dragged into a US-led war with no apparent plan and without reflecting on the impact. I am also proud that the Foreign Secretary convened more than 40 countries to help build international pressure to open the strait of Hormuz. I was chatting to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak prior to this debate. It is hugely important that we build those international alliances because we cannot do that on our own. I ask the Minister to address in closing the economic impact on the UK of not getting the peace process back on track and trade flowing through the strait. This recent conflict shows the regime in Iran has no scruples about hijacking the world economy by blocking the strait, and we have seen the consequences. And, again, we should of course condemn the Iranian regime. I said that I would mention Raytheon UK, based in my constituency, and I am proud that it is leading the consortium that has won a £20 billion contract to build the British Army’s new AI training systems. Training like that is now key to the nature of war and how we fight war, and I am very proud that my town is going to play its part in that endeavour. Finally, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his leadership, which has put Britain back on the international stage. Working with our allies is the only way we can deal with these issues.

I too congratulate the Minister on his appointment and welcome him to his place. Call me naive, perhaps, but I honestly believe that there is nobody in this Chamber who, for all the absenteeism and manifest faults, is a supporter of, or an apologist for, the regime in Tehran. It is a regime that has for decades sought to export its version of Islamic revolution across the world by organising and financing armed groups and militias while simultaneously being absolutely brutal in crushing any form of dissent within its own borders. It was always the hope that one day the people of Iran, weary of the internal repression and worn down by the collapsing economy, would turn against the regime, overthrow those leaders and begin a new chapter in the history of that wonderful country. There have been moments in recent years when we thought, indeed fervently hoped, that that could happen. Many of us here will remember the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, which swept across Iran in late 2022, when those incredibly brave Iranian women took to the streets in their tens of thousands to protest against the murder of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who died in police custody having been arrested for not wearing her hijab properly in public. Those brave women and girls were soon joined by students, by workers, by members of ethnic and religious minority communities, who had had enough of the subjugation of women, the repression of minorities, the religious fundamentalism, the police brutality and the endemic Government corruption. And so, to the cry of “Woman, life, freedom,” and in an act of incredible bravery and in deliberate defiance of the regime, they removed their headscarves. Of course they knew that in so doing that bravery would come at huge personal cost to so many of them as individuals and to their families. As Professor Azadeh Kian, director of the centre for gender and feminist studies at the University of Paris, said at the time: “What these women are doing in Iran is a revolution, at least a cultural revolution.” But it was a revolutionary act which could not be tolerated by the regime, and it was one which the regime punished the only way it knew how: with extreme violence. In the immediate aftermath of those protests, hundreds of protesters were killed and thousands more were arrested. In the short term, the streets were cleared; but no matter the wishes of the regime in Tehran, no amount of brutal repression would crush the dreams of millions of predominantly young Iranians. It was only a matter of time before they would take to the streets again, and they did so at the end of last year, on 28 December, in the biggest display of civil unrest since the ’79 revolution. Millions of Iranians took to the streets. They took to the streets amid a collapsing currency, soaring inflation, a deterioration in living standards and so much more. It spread quickly to over 200 cities. In the inevitable crackdown that followed, thousands of protesters were killed and the IRGC, using live ammunition, turned on unarmed protesters on 8 and 9 January. In the days that followed, tens of thousands were arrested and there were verified reports of mass killings, putting the death toll at upwards of 30,000. The Iranian regime’s brutality is almost beyond comprehension, but it must have known that those popular uprisings would only become larger and more frequent. It must have known in late January or early February of this year that as its economy collapsed, with its continual brutalisation of women and girls, the imposition of strict religious laws and the suppression of minorities, the people of Iran had had enough, and that pressure was building. As sure as day follows night, the regime’s grip on its population was loosening, but on 28 February, President Trump began his illegal war. One of Trump’s many and varied reasons for that massive aerial bombardment was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but this was the same President Trump who, following the 2025 bombardment, told us: “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran…Obliteration is an accurate term!” His assessment was backed up by his Israeli allies, who announced that “we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years.” Yet in the face of what was happening inside Iran, the United States and Israel, between them, took the decision to attack. It was in that first wave of American attacks that 165 wee girls, aged between seven and 12, were killed when a US bomb hit their school while they were sitting in their classrooms. That same evening, Trump announced, “to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand”. I suspect that for many Iranians, particularly the parents of those dead children, freedom had never felt further away. Five months on from that initial attack, the freedom that was promised to the people of Iran has turned out to be no more than the gimmicky soundbite we suspected it might be. Over the past five months, it has become clear that in this ill-conceived, illegal war of choice—although it remains unclear whether it was Trump’s choice or Netanyahu’s—there is no plan, no strategy and no sign of an off-ramp to bring the war to an end. All it seems to have achieved is to have all but destroyed Iran’s civilian economy, thereby harming the very people Trump said he was acting to liberate, while at the same time giving the regime in Tehran a huge strategic advantage, one that they are currently exploiting to great effect. One would have hoped and expected that in the White House, when they were scenario-planning this attack, someone would have asked the obvious question: “What will we do if the Iranians block the strait of Hormuz?” Unfortunately for the rest of the world, when someone is so desperate to deflect and hide from a scandal or a crisis at home, the bleeding obvious can sometimes become obscured. In response to that attack, the very first thing Iran did was to cut off the strait of Hormuz—one of the most strategically important waterways in the world—leading to what the International Energy Agency has described as the “largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market”. Iran’s response sent fuel prices rocketing, and the cost of just about everything else that relies on oil—either for its manufacturing or its transportation—soaring. There is not a family anywhere in the United Kingdom who have not paid a direct price for Trump’s reckless behaviour. Even if this war were to end tomorrow, the economic shockwaves would continue for years to come. The European Central Bank recently warned that a prolonged conflict will likely trigger a period of stagflation and a period of low growth rates accompanied by inflation, and push major energy-dependent economies, including Germany and Italy, into technical recession by the end of 2026. Since the initial attack back in February, Trump has told us time and again that in one form or another, Iran has been defeated, that it is begging for a peace deal, or that the strait of Hormuz is about to return to normal service. None of that has been true, and every ceasefire that has been brokered has collapsed within days. The dire economic consequences of Trump’s war of choice continue.

There is little in the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that I disagree with, including what I could generously call the maladroitness of the American response. However, given the Tehran regime’s human rights violations and its utter disdain for not only its own citizens, but citizens across the world, what does he think is the correct response to a regime that is so brutal and so fundamentally outside the societal norms that he and I think are acceptable?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is a difficult question to answer, but I can tell the House what should not have been done, and what will never work. You do not free people from oppression through indiscriminate aerial bombardment. You do not free people by killing them, or by killing the children of the people you purport to be there to liberate. Of course there are ways in which any democratic country can support a freedom movement within a repressive regime, but what America has done with its Israeli allies is the antithesis of what should be done. All they have done is strengthen the regime, polarise the world, and irreparably damage the movement for freedom within Iran.

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far—he is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the actions of Trump and, therefore, Netanyahu are not born out of a passion for the liberation of the Iranian people but are an imposition of imperialist forces, and with imperialism naturally comes capitalism? It is ordinary Iranian people who are suffering on the back of that.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his—as usual—erudite explanation. The point he is making is fundamentally correct: this was not done to help liberate the people of Iran from an oppressive theocracy. It was done for American security, and because of an American belief that they had some kind of God-given right to the mineral wealth that is below the ground in the middle east and beyond. That is what this war is about; it is not about liberation. Even yesterday, having U-turned on his latest plan for the zillionth time, Trump announced: “We’re going to knock out all their power plants.” Even after all that has happened—even after all that this man has said—he is still planning to knock out power plants, the power plants that supply the electricity that keeps the lights on in the houses of the people he is supposedly determined to liberate. As we all know, targeting civilian infrastructure is a breach of international law, but sadly, what regard has either Trump or Netanyahu for international law as this year develops? This reckless and illegal action has set back the cause of human rights in Iran by decades. It has strengthened the position of the regime in Tehran, allowing it to portray itself as the victim, rather than being made to account for its appalling human rights record. America and its allies have sacrificed international law and have once again shown that their doctrine of “might is right” will somehow prevail. That has brought financial hardship to every single home in every single community, in every single part of the United Kingdom, and for what? The world is less safe, the Iranian people are suffering more, and the Epstein scandal has not gone away.

I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026, the Ayes were 330 and the Noes were 109, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots, the Ayes were 330 and the Noes were 109, so the Ayes have it. [The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

It has been a fascinating debate so far this afternoon. There is no doubt about the effects of a lot of what the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) has just said. This debate therefore has to be set into the context of what we are dealing with now. What is going on in Iran is an example of the importance of some of the tough decisions we have to make. Until November, I am one of the vice-presidents of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Most of my career in this place has been about dealing with soft power, and that is a soft power body. It has become difficult in recent years to maintain the UK’s reputation among allies, because countries, especially the eastern allies of NATO, are accelerating their spending enormously quickly. They are taking that spending up to serious levels, way beyond what would have been suggested, because they recognise the threat. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who is not in his place, spoke about how we make people recognise the threat. I do not believe that we always can; indeed, history has shown that we cannot. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and I have often had a discussion over a cup of tea about what happened in the 1930s, and the Cabinet that Ramsay MacDonald had to form as Prime Minister. The difficulty of getting people to recognise the threat is why Winston Churchill went through years of being detested, while he tried to warn of the coming dangers. Neville Chamberlain, often described as an appeaser, recognised that this country was nowhere near ready for war in 1937, and was having to push things back. There is also what is often described as the phoney war from September 1939; people were saying, “Why are we doing this?”, right up until the bombs started to fall. As I said to the hon. Member for Loughborough, people can see things, but they also cannot see things, so how do we get the message across? We hear people say today, “I am not going to fight for my country. Why should I get involved? Why should I defend the Baltic states?” I remind the House that way back in the 1930s, the Oxford Union had a debate on the motion that “This House would not in any circumstances fight for King and Country”. That debate took place—let me get my maths right—some 90-odd years ago. How people regard the defence of their country has never changed, and that is where tough decisions come in. It is the responsibility of Governments to do things that are not popular. I have debated with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), many times, and I have a great deal of respect for him. I suspect that tucked away in his notes for his winding-up speech there might be a reference to defence spending in the 14 years of Conservative Government, but I think that line does us a disservice. We have to recognise that from roughly 1989 onwards, defence spending was cut and cut. It hovered between around 2.2% and 2.5% of GDP. The Labour party has said that when it left office, defence spending had risen. In blunt terms, that is true, but Labour MPs do not say just how much was coming out of the reserves to fund the wars. A lot of Labour MPs stare at their feet when that is mentioned now. Defence was cut further under the coalition Government, when Danny Alexander was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Liberal Democrats like to speak about what the Conservatives did to defence spending, but they conveniently overlook who the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was who pushed through those defence cuts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is, I believe, one of the most experienced men in our party in analysing defence budgets and understanding defence needs. I am sure that when he winds up the debate his words will be worth listening to, as they always are, because he understands, and he understood at the time, that the decisions being made would have a knock-on consequence. I am trying not to make party political comments today. I am making a speech about the threat that is right in front of our nation’s eyes. It is clear that this general debate on Iran, and the cancellation of all the business previously announced, was arranged not because there is an incoming barrage of missiles and we are going to experience a conflagration, but because the Government did not want to call on the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) to come to the House until six weeks from now. That is obvious, but it does not take away the underlying point that we have to accept in this country. Let me return to the subject of defence spending. I have been in the Chamber when the procurement Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and the new Secretary of State for Defence have been at the Dispatch Box to talk about how much funding they are giving to defence. They say that they are spending record amounts on it. Well, I am spending record amounts on diesel for my car, but that does not mean that I am investing more; it means that my revenue costs have gone up—and the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), said that the Treasury was not supplying the money, or the Government were not willing to spend it. The hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that there had to be a more hybrid approach to defence, and I think he is right. That does not mean chucking everything else away. I was relieved that the Type 26 and Type 31 programme for the Royal Navy is still in place. However, I am open-minded and, indeed, intrigued: I think there may be a positive outcome to the replacement of the Type 83 with the Type 90s—well, let us just call it a destroyer programme for now, until they have a proper name, but there will be drones attached to them—because we need a flexible workforce. Wars always accelerate innovation. The speed with which drone technology has developed in the Ukraine war is incredible, but we have seen this before. Look at the speed with which we moved from the V1 to the V2 rocket. Look at the speed of our work to develop atomic weapons over the six years of the second world war; we came very close to developing them then, and indeed ultimately did.

rose—

I will give way to my colleague on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

The right hon. Gentleman is, as always, making a very good speech. I want to make a point that I think is often under-appreciated when we talk about drones and drone warfare. The Ukrainians are, of course, world-leading, but I think that many of us in the west did not realise the extent to which Iran had advanced its drone technology. For instance, Iranian Shahed drones have been used by Russia to harm civilians in Ukraine. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must watch closely not just what our allies are developing, but what our adversaries are developing?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that is a point that I was moving towards, given that today’s debate is about Iran, and the consequences of what is happening there for the conflict, for our country and for the defence of Europe. It is now clear that the Russians know how to defeat the weapons that remain in our warehouses, because when we use a weapon, they learn how to defeat it. We therefore have to accelerate our innovation and accelerate how we adapt, and a great deal of that involves drone warfare. Nevertheless, there is always a need for traditional weaponry. I look at the plans for the Royal Navy, and they seem to me to constitute a sensible way forward, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is in a much stronger position to comment on that. We have to accept that there are instance when the Ministry of Defence gets it really, really wrong. When, for a short period, I was the procurement Minister, Ajax was landing on my desk every day. My right hon. Friend knows as much about Ajax as most people in this House know about what is in their wardrobe—he knows every nut and bolt—and he is right when he says that we must accept at some point that some projects must be scrapped.

My right hon. Friend generously refers to me. On Ajax, the Government published a written ministerial statement yesterday that had a great deal of verbiage in it, but it still did not say when Ajax would enter operational service, even though it is nine years late.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that. I have been speaking to officers who command Ajax tanks. When an officer is interviewed, he has another officer stood behind him, to make sure that he says the right things. When an officer is interviewed on the record, he is not going to say a lot. You have to go to the pub and speak there to the officers who command the tanks; you need to have proper conversation with them. They will tell you that this thing will be useless in a war. The fact that the tanks cannot communicate with each other in real time on the battlefield should send a shiver through us all. The point I am driving at builds on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who talked about Iran supplying technical drones to Russia, how Ukraine has moved ahead of those, how Russia will catch up, and how we have to adapt. We have to accept that some of our programmes are simply not fit for purpose, because we do not have a budget in place for funding the defence investment plan; it is smoke and mirrors. Labour Members will push back on that, but the figures are there. There is £15 billion to be spent, even though the demand was for £28 billion. Some £5 billion has not been identified, and £10 billion comes from savings in the Ministry of Defence, so there is not a penny more for the MOD. The money is just not there, and we should be terrified by that. Those are not my words, but the words of the man who was the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough. This is not coming from the Opposition; it is coming from a man who was in office, and who has the Labour movement running through him, like the words in a stick of Brighton rock. There is no way that he wanted to criticise his Labour Government, and neither did the noble Lord Robertson, another man who has the Labour party running through his veins, but they have pointed out just how exposed we are. Too many people ask—again, this comes down to education—“Why should we defend the Baltic states if Putin wants to go in?”. I have heard people say, “They’re Russian anyway. They were part of the Russian empire.” I have heard people say, “The Ukrainians started the war with Russia. NATO pushed them into it.” I have heard people say all these things, and do you know what they all have in common? They all started off looking at particular right-wing websites—I do not mean far right; I am not talking about extremism—that push these sorts of things, and the Russians and the Chinese have been watching what they click. They are the ones developing the algorithms, and they feed their lines through algorithms that take people further and further down a particular path. That is about undermining what underpins our society. When sensible people whom I have known for years are parroting back exactly what is coming out of the Kremlin, it is clear that this is having an effect.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, and he is absolutely right. This issue was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who spoke about the threat of social media disinformation from hostile states such as Iran and Russia. Given the significance of the threat to our democracy, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that there does not seem to be a single lead in Government for dealing with this issue? We have the Security Minister, the defending democracy taskforce, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and, of course, the MOD. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be a single lead on tackling disinformation online?

Absolutely, and we all have a role to play in talking to the country and making people realise what is happening, but I do not think they want to believe it. Too many people, especially from some of the right-wing parties, are quick to jump in and say that we must defund the BBC, but why? People say to me, “I hate the BBC.” No, I think they hate BBC News because it does not agree with their opinion. I think that they are being fed the view online that the BBC is wrong and is lying. I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow about the importance of the World Service, to which I listen a lot. In fact, I recommend to people, if they can find the time, that they listen to “Newshour” for half an hour a day to hear about what is going on in the world. Some of those stories eventually break through to the mainstream news, but it really gives us a picture of what is going on in the world, and we should trust it. I am not making excuses for the BBC. Boy, oh boy, has it got it wrong in some areas in recent years, and that undermines faith, but that is exactly what the Russian bots pick up on, and they feed on that and further undermine faith.

I liked the right hon. Gentleman saying earlier that he and I have discussed Ramsay MacDonald in the 1930s, over a tea and no other beverage. I very much messed up my words when I was trying to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I was trying to make the point that the problem we have with these malign influences and hostile states is the drip-feeding of disinformation. It does not come all at once and say that people should support Russia. This drip-feeding is really concerning, and that is a real challenge for us to tackle, is it not?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. The point I am driving at—bringing all that together about how this lack of confidence is slowly starting to build in society through what such people are doing—is that that is why we now have to take some really unpopular decisions. The Leader of the Opposition—the leader of the Conservative party—has made it clear that we would cut welfare to fund defence. These are unpopular decisions, but it has to be done because we are not going to convince people about the threat. History shows that people are never convinced until something happens. People do not understand geography, and think that Ukraine is so far in the distance that it does not affect us. However, as has been said by so many Members, it affects all of us through the energy crisis. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and I have debated with each other in this Chamber many a time, and I have huge respect for him, because he takes a view, with which I fundamentally disagree, about not spending money on defence but spending it on welfare, meeting societal needs and so on. He is clear and honest about it, and he backs up why he believes it. However, I believe that if we are not ready to go to war, we cannot have a peace, and if we do not have that peace, we are going to go to war. Such a war does not necessarily mean bombs raining down, because it could well mean cyber-attack, when the areas on which he thinks we should be spending would collapse anyway. Our society would collapse, so we have to make that investment, because Ukraine shows the enormous loss of GDP—50% of its GDP has been lost—because of the invasion by another country. Turning to the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), I have always taken issue with SNP Members when they call Trident a nuclear weapon. In my mind, and I think in the minds of many people, Trident is not a nuclear weapon, because it is called the nuclear deterrent. People say they would never use Trident, but we are using it every single day. We have used it continuously at sea every single day for nigh on 60 years. Yes, it is creaking; yes, we are sending people out for too long; and, yes, there has been a ridiculous delay in getting out the Dreadnought class because of the lack of reactors when we needed them. However, it is absolutely vital that we invest in it because it is a deterrent, and it is the best example I can give of why we have to invest in defence. The Iranian conflict shows just how much our world can be affected. I could go on forever about the energy situation, and why I believe that the actions of the Energy Secretary have put this country at enormous risk. I do not want to try the patience of the House or you, Madam Deputy Speaker, after being on my feet for 18 minutes—

Nineteen.

Ninety or 19? [Laughter.] A lot of people say we cannot be reliant on the petrochemical dictators, but we are utterly reliant on the Chinese, who are no more reliable than the petrochemical dictators. All our processed materials for renewables come through China. Why? It is because they are cheap, and because China has cornered the supply and the market. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you cannot comment from the Chair, but I urge people to look at your work in this place to understand exactly how the Chinese make those products so cheaply. I am not sure whether you are still sanctioned—

I am.

I do not mean to be speaking for you, but I know that this is something you are passionate about. You have been sanctioned because you have called out the human rights record of the Chinese and the way they have been exploiting the Uyghur population to fund and put forward the energy on which we now rely. What was going to be the second topic of the Opposition Day debate—we were not allowed to debate it today, although this debate is clearly not quite as urgent as the Leader of the House made out—was how we have taken terrible decisions on our energy policy. We are leaving ourselves more and more exposed to other areas. Yes, we cannot control the price of oil and gas, and we all know that it is traded on the international markets, but it would help to secure the supply. All the gas goes directly into our system. I think 3% of our gas comes from LNG. We could start to reduce that risk. Iran has a huge malign influence which has a direct effect on us all and we must ensure we are ready to defend ourselves. The point I really want to get across today is this. We have to make decisions that are really, really unpopular and controversial. We have to slash an out of control welfare bill and we have to spend on defence. People say, “Where would you get the money to pay for defence?” We have been crystal clear about that, no matter how unpopular or popular it is. The point is not just coming from our side; Lord Robertson has also said that such spending is vital. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak is in his place. I was just saying, and he will be able to look it up in Hansard, that I think he makes some very important points about having a hybrid force. We must ensure that we invest in what is needed, and recognise the projects, such as Ajax, that have just failed and work out how we are going to do things differently.

I congratulate the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) on his recent promotion. Most Members will agree that the repression of Iran’s population by its Government is an absolute disgrace, but Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal war on Iran has unleashed chaos across the region. This conflict, backed by the leaders of both the Conservative party and Reform UK, has put British nationals directly in harm’s way. Renewed US and Iranian strikes now risk damaging the region, dragging it back into full-scale war. Trump’s actions have caused immense suffering across the middle east, and have had real consequences for the people of Wokingham and across the UK. The conflict also reminds us that we cannot neglect our relationships with our European allies and that we cannot rely on Trump. Driven by ego rather than diplomacy, Trump’s reckless strikes have undone weeks of negotiations with Iran and shattered hopes for a peaceful resolution. Most recently, President Trump announced plans to impose a 20% tax on shipping through the strait of Hormuz, before reversing course just a few hours later. That proposal amounted to economic extortion, a flagrant violation of international law, and would have further increased costs for UK families already struggling with the cost of living. My constituents in Wokingham are feeling the effects. Rising instability in the strait is pushing up fuel prices at a time when household energy bills remain high. Will the Minister therefore consider Liberal Democrat calls to cut fuel duty by 10p, reduce bus fares to £1, cut rail fares by 10%, and remove VAT on public electric vehicle charging?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

I will not; I would like to carry on. Iran’s continued attacks on vessels in the strait are fuelling instability. The conflict shows little sign of ending while Trump refuses to acknowledge that military escalation has failed and admit that he was wrong. His reckless and unpredictable approach should strengthen the Government’s resolve to deepen co-operation with our reliable European allies. It is for those reasons that I urge the Government to back the Liberal Democrat proposal for a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. Such a partnership would strengthen our economy, reinforce our security and help Britain respond more effectively to international crises. The Government must do all they can to encourage the United States and Iran to return to negotiations, restore stability in the strait of Hormuz and work towards ending this devastating conflict.

Before I start on the main topic of Iran, I put on record my condolences to the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe. The only time I met her was when I was a late teenager at the Oxford Union—like me, she was a former treasurer of the Oxford Union. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) mentioned the Oxford Union when he referenced the King and country debate. The other formative debate that the Oxford Union has every year is the no-confidence debate, which always happens in September or October, at the start of the academic year. In the past academic year, which we are now coming to the end of, the Oxford Union voted overwhelmingly to say that it did not have confidence in His Majesty’s Government. However, I am not naive enough to believe that Labour Members were following that debate carefully and that that is the reason they have ousted the current Prime Minister. It is interesting, however, that the reason we are here debating Iran is not because Iran is a serious issue—although, of course, it is. It is because neither the outgoing Prime Minister nor the incoming Prime Minister, nor Labour Members want there to be scrutiny of the new Prime Minister. Labour was so frightened of whatever it was it thought its new Prime Minister was going to say at the Dispatch Box that it has given him cover for six weeks until he has time to think about it. We know from his own campaign manager that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been plotting this coup for over a year. One would have thought that in that time he could have come up with a few answers, ideas or ways forward, but he will not speak to this House or to journalists, and presumably he does not even speak to Labour Back Benchers. Hopefully, in September he will come before this House and we can scrutinise him. As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the problem is not whichever Prime Minister is leading the Labour party; it is fundamentally the Labour party itself. If this Labour party has allowed their incoming Prime Minister to evade scrutiny, all Labour Members should be ashamed.

My Jewish constituents will be watching this debate, so I put on record my support for the Government’s ban of supporters of the IRGC. I also welcome the fact that the Government have sanctioned that organisation and 500 Iranian-linked entities and individuals. The hon. Gentleman is an outspoken critic of the IRGC, so will he use this debate to repeat his criticism of it, and to support the Government’s moves?

The hon. Member is entirely right, and I will come on to the IRGC in my speech. He is right to raise the concerns of his Jewish constituents. but I think all our constituents—of any faith or none—should fear the malign influence of the IRGC, and the way that it has brutalised its own population and works to the detriment of the UK and other European nations. For centuries, Iran has been a nation of immense historical, cultural and civilisational importance. It has produced some of the world’s greatest contributions to literature, science, the arts and philosophy. Before the ’79 revolution, Iran was widely regarded as one of the most advanced and outward-looking states in the middle east. It was a country with a growing economy, expanding diplomatic ties with the west and a strategic role as a regional partner for us here in Britain, the United States and other democratic states. I do not say that to give right hon. and hon. Members a history lesson, but simply to highlight that it is not the Iranian people or Iran itself with which we have a problem, but the current fundamentalist regime in Tehran. The picture I have painted of Iran before ’79 changed completely with the revolution. The previous system of government had essentially produced prosperity, but the Islamic Republic has a fundamentally different view and has, for four decades, pursued the destruction of its own country. The Iranian people have suffered from increasing restrictions on political freedoms, suppression of dissent, economic mismanagement and a state apparatus that has too often prioritised ideological ambition and external confrontation over the prosperity and liberty of its own citizens. I was very disappointed in the speech from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who is no longer in his place, because he spent the whole time blaming Donald Trump. As I said in earlier interventions, I have no love for Donald Trump or the way in which he has dealt with the issues in the region, but not to stand and condemn Iran was shocking. I did a quick search, and while the hon. Member has mentioned Donald Trump in 18 speeches in this House, today was the first in which he has mentioned Iran. I think that is probably the wrong balance. The current regime does not represent the aspirations of millions of ordinary Iranians, who have repeatedly risked their lives to demand greater freedoms, accountability and the right to determine their own future. Our quarrel is with the regime, which has systematically denied its citizens basic liberties, exported terrorism and instability across the middle east and further, threatened our allies and conducted hostile activity here in the United Kingdom. The courage of the Iranian people deserves all of our admiration. Since the end of last year, protests have spread across all 31 provinces, driven by soaring inflation, economic hardship, corruption and decades of political repression. The response from the authorities in Tehran has once again demonstrated the methods on which this regime relies: intimidation, arbitrary detention, restrictions on communications and the use of force against those who simply demand a better future. Support for the Iranian people must therefore go hand in hand with a clear-eyed assessment of the wider threat posed by the Iranian regime. For decades, Iran has sought to project power beyond its borders—not through normal diplomacy, as some in this Chamber seem to think, but through intimidation, terrorism and proxy warfare. It has armed, financed and directed militant organisations across the middle east in pursuit of its strategic objectives. It has threatened Israel, our Gulf partners and other allies of the UK and US, culminating in the attack on a number of our allies earlier this year and last year. Last May, I had the opportunity to go to Bahrain and see our troops there—to think that they were being bombed by Iran is utterly disgusting. We need to have a robust response to that. I have to say, I found the response of the UK Government and the current Prime Minister weak-willed at best. He seemed to be happy to allow American fighter jets to take off from our bases and to be willing for our British fighters to shoot down incoming missiles, but was not willing to use our bases and fighter jets to shoot the missile launchers. That seems utterly bizarre to me. The Prime Minister was extraordinarily fortunate that one of those incoming missiles did not hit and kill personnel at Akrotiri or hit a hotel in Dubai full of British citizens. If that had happened, I think the British public’s mood towards this Prime Minister would have changed, and changed rapidly. I do hope that the incoming Prime Minister will have a much more robust response when dealing with these threats from not just Iran, but a number of its proxy actors.

Is my hon. Friend, in that one sentence, not summing up what the problem with today’s debate has been? The contributions that have been made, including from the Government Front Bench, clearly do not reflect the urgency with which the Leader of the House outlined the change in business yesterday. This debate was clearly scheduled to stop a motion being put to this House to make the new Prime Minister come to this House. It will now be at least a month and a half before any of the questions that my hon. Friend has just asked will be answered.

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The fact that the incoming Prime Minister has run away from any kind of scrutiny, whether it be from us, the press or anybody else, does him a disservice, and I think he will come to regret that decision. I do not know the right hon. Gentleman personally, but from Labour Members I have spoken to understand that he is good on his feet and can talk, so it surprises me that he does not want to come to the House and answer those questions. None the less, we are having this debate, and it is an important one. I spoke about proxies. Hezbollah, for example, remains a heavily armed organisation despite international obligations and years of diplomatic pressure. Hamas has not abandoned violence, and the Houthis continue to threaten freedom of navigation and regional security well beyond Yemen. Iran’s network of proxies may be under pressure, but it remains one of the principal drivers of instability across the middle east. That brings me to the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been mentioned. The IRGC cannot simply be treated as an ordinary branch of Government. It is the institution most closely associated with Iran’s external military operations, its support for those proxy groups, its intimidation campaigns abroad, and its efforts to undermine the security and safety of Britain and our allies. Earlier this year I co-signed a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for the IRGC to be proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. I did so because the evidence is compelling, and recent developments have only strengthened the case for action. I welcome steps taken in recent years to respond to the increased threat posed by Iran. Last year the Iranian state was placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. That was an important national security measure to increase transparency around activities undertaken on behalf of foreign powers. More than 500 Iranian individuals and entities have been sanctioned, restricting their access to the international financial system, imposing consequences on those responsible for the malign activity, and demonstrating that Britain will not ignore threats to our national security. I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will be proscribed under the Terrorism Act. It is a really significant step, because it reflects the reality that the IRGC is not merely a political or even a military institution of a foreign Government but an organisation that is responsible for activities that pose a direct threat to Britain, our citizens and our allies. I note that Conservative Members have been calling for proscription of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation as early as 2023, and I know that others across the Chamber did so. I thank them for their efforts in getting us to this point. The Government have taken a number of important steps to respond to the threat posed by Iran, but this is an important national security measure, because it is designed to increase transparency. We should also be clear about what the measures were and what they are not. Sanctions matter—they are really important, despite what some hon. Members on the Labour Benches have said. Foreign influence registration matters, and action against Iran-linked organisations matters, but they are not the same as proscription under the Terrorism Act. This debate takes place against the backdrop of Iran’s continuing nuclear ambitions. Britain has consistently supported diplomacy in the region. Where diplomacy can succeed, that remains the right approach, but nobody should underestimate the consequences of further military action and escalation in the middle east. Diplomacy cannot succeed without pressure. It cannot succeed without enforcement. It cannot succeed if Iran believes that international commitments can be ignored without consequences. Sanctions, international co-ordination and robust enforcement all have a role to play. The international community must remain determined that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon capability that would further destabilise an already fragile region and place additional pressure on our allies. From past engagement, we know that the Iranian regime has historically responded not to weakness, ambiguity or pleasant overtures, but to strength, unity and resolve. Iranian state-linked actors have been responsible for hostile activity directed towards the United Kingdom, including the intimidation, espionage and threats that I mentioned against individuals on British soil. Protecting the British public must remain the Government’s first duty. Our response must therefore match that scale of threat. Iran undoubtedly faces profound internal challenges of its own—its economy, its regional position and the public confidence in the regime are together a real pressure on that regime—but, unfortunately, none of that internal pressure means that change is inevitable. The British public therefore expect the Government not merely to recognise the threats but to confront them. In closing, I wish to ask the Minister a few questions. First, what is the timetable for completing the legal process for bringing the proscription fully into force? Secondly, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that the evidence base and legal reasoning underpinning the decision are sufficiently robust to withstand any potential judicial challenge? Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the likelihood of any appeal or judicial review? What contingency planning is there, should legal proceedings be brought? Fourthly, what additional operational benefits will proscription provide to the police and security services in identifying, disrupting and prosecuting IRGC-linked activity in the United Kingdom? Finally, how will the Government work with our international partners—including the United States and other allies who have long recognised the threat posed by the IRGC—to ensure that this decision has maximum impact?

I thank the hon. Member for giving way as he is about to close. He talked about the importance of international co-operation to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability; I completely agree with him. Where the UK has had success before, that has been in concert with the French and the Germans. With the French presidential election this year with the current president moving on, does he agree that there is a real opportunity for Britain to lead that European co-operation to try to address the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that Britain should be the leader and at the forefront of any negotiations and international coalitions, not just because we have the skills and the history to be able to do so but because that would demonstrate to our European allies—perhaps even more importantly, to the Americans—that we as a country are willing to stand up and do our bit. The Government really must ensure that the right decision they have taken is implemented swiftly, defended robustly and enforced effectively. The decision has been made; now, the test is the delivery.

I call the shadow Minister.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who, as the whole House knows, spoke extremely well and in detail about the threat posed by the IRGC. I agree with every word he said. I will return to that, although I suspect not as eloquently. My hon. Friend, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), mentioned the 1933 Oxford Union debate. On that topic, it is worth reminding ourselves of what happened there. The motion, voted on on 9 February 1933—barely a fortnight after Adolf Hitler had become Chancellor of Germany—was that “This House would, under no circumstances, fight for King and country.” It went through by a majority of over 2:1 on the night. We do not know how each individual student voted that night, but we have a good idea of those who were there, many of whom subsequently signed up to fight for king and country in 1939. That shows how attitudes can change, and I have great faith that, were it ever to come to it and the young people of this country really believed we were under threat, they would rally to the colours again. It is worth placing that belief on the record. I wish to reiterate the point I made in an intervention on the new Minister for Veterans and People—it is good to see him in his place. Unfortunately, yet again as we debate defence and security—the first duty of government is the defence of the realm—Reform Members are not here. These plastic patriots love to wrap themselves in the flag, but when we talk about those who serve to defend it, they cannot be bothered to turn up. I do not live in Clacton, but if I did, I would vote for the Bin. For many years, the Iranian regime has been the most prolific sponsor of global terrorism. From Hezbollah and Hamas to the Houthis, who have been attacking British ships in the Red sea for some time, Iran has been at the heart of it all. The regime has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and uses hostile anti-western rhetoric. Indeed, the former supreme leader Ali Khamenei despicably called for Israel to be “eradicated” and “uprooted and destroyed”. The Iranian regime has also been accused of supporting proxy conflicts across the middle east, contributing to instability in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, all facilitated by the enforcers, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. As the proactive think tank, the Coalition for Global Prosperity, has warned us, “despite the disruption that Iranian proxies have seen to their activities, there remains the potential for their regrouping due to the weak governance and poor economic stability that engulfs parts of the Middle East”. That is a sage warning. In recent months, the Iranian regime has deployed thousands of drones, supported by a variety of ballistic missiles, which have been fired at Israel and a number of fellow middle eastern countries, including Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—all allies of this country. On 1 March 2026, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon pointed out, one drone reached as far as Cyprus and hit our airbase at RAF Akrotiri, thus directly endangering the lives of our service personnel. Mercifully, no one was killed or wounded—but they could have been. Given that, on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition I place on record our admiration and thanks to all our armed forces personnel deployed in the middle east, and crucially to their loved ones who support them, even though many are separated from them, back in the home base in the United Kingdom. Our armed forces are deployed in the gulf in support of our long-standing allies, but also to help defend our nation at home. The director general of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, speaking at Thames House on 16 October last year revealed: “Since the start of 2020, MI5 and the police have disrupted 19 late-stage attack plots. And we’ve intervened in many hundreds of developing threats.” He went on: “MI5 has tracked more than twenty potentially lethal Iran-backed plots in just the one year”. The whole House will know that it is very unusual for the director of the security service to be so candid about threats to the home base, and therefore we need to take his words extremely seriously. They offer a stark warning to us all about the threat of the Iranian regime and the IRGC, both in the middle east and in the United Kingdom. Many of the UK’s closest allies, including the US, already proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, thus increasing pressure on its leadership, restricting its ability to operate internationally and making it clear that support for terrorism and violent destabilisation carries consequences. That is why we on the Opposition Benches welcome the decision to proscribe the IRGC as a foreign state threat. When the Minister for the Middle East sums up, perhaps he will explain to the House exactly where the Government will go from here and whether legislation, either primary or secondary, will be required. If that is the case, they will most certainly have our support. Turning to nuclear weapons, for decades, the global consensus has rightly been that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is a critical security objective, given the profound risks that would pose to regional stability and the wider global effort to prevent nuclear proliferation. The acquisition of a viable nuclear weapon by the Iranian regime would fundamentally alter the security balance in one of the world’s most volatile regions. The possession of nuclear weapons by the Iranian regime would increase the risk of miscalculation, escalation and a wider nuclear arms race. This would create a far more dangerous security environment, making existing tensions between countries more difficult to manage and increasing the likelihood of future conflict. This was emphasised by the UK’s statement to the United Nations Security Council in June 2024, which stressed: “Iran’s unabated nuclear escalation…makes the region and the world far more dangerous and makes escalation by others more likely.” This would create further consequences for UK interests specifically. Any conflict involving a nuclear-capable Iran would risk threatening the security of British personnel and assets in the region, disrupting vital trade routes on which the UK economy relies and undermining global energy stability, with wider consequences for consumers and businesses. A number of hon. Members have referred to that this afternoon. These risks are not theoretical. Following the United Kingdom Government’s decision to grant the United States use of military air bases for strikes on Iran, the Iranian ambassador in London warned that any facilities, properties or bases used against Iran would be considered “legitimate targets”, demonstrating the potential for wider escalation and the direct risks posed to United Kingdom interests. This highlights the broader challenge of responding to Iranian aggression while maintaining the stability of vital international waterways. That brings me on to the situation in the strait of Hormuz. The strait is one of the world’s most important waterways for global energy supplies and international trade. Iran’s attempts to threaten freedom of navigation and bring shipping through this vital route to a standstill, contrary to international law, represent a deliberate effort to weaponise trade and effectively hold the global economy to ransom. The Iranian regime’s actions, including the reported recent attack on a Cypriot-flagged container ship travelling through the strait, demonstrate the clear need for a firm response to protect international shipping and regional stability. That is why we wholeheartedly support efforts to strengthen maritime security, including through the deployment of minesweeping equipment where necessary. Minesweepers are a defensive capability, designed to protect freedom of navigation, safeguard global energy supplies and prevent any state from using maritime disruption as a tool of coercion. The UK must ensure that no regime can threaten one of the world’s most vital economic lifelines without facing resistance. The UK’s approach should also recognise the growing importance of technology in modern defence—something I know the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) is very keen on. The Defence drone strategy of 2024, delivered by the then procurement Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), highlighted the potential of uncrewed systems in the maritime domain, including their use for mine countermeasures. These capabilities demonstrate how the United Kingdom could use innovation to protect vital international infrastructure while responding effectively to emerging threats. At this point, I should declare an interest. As some will know, my late father, Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, served on a minesweeper named HMS Bressay during the second world war, including on D-Day. As the son of a minesweeper man, may I ask the Minister if he could update us on the deployment of RFA Lyme Bay to the Gulf? I realise that there are certain operational constraints on what he can say, but could he give us at least some idea of when those capabilities might be deployed and in what circumstances? Working with the French and others, we have the capability to clear the strait. Can he give us some idea of if and when we might be required to use it? At present the Iranian strategy appears to be effectively to play cat and mouse with the Trump Administration. Iran will no doubt seek to humiliate the President in the run-up to the mid-term elections in November, approximately four months from now. The Iranians have form on this. The House may remember that they sought to humiliate President Carter over the American hostages and only released them on the day of President Reagan’s inauguration—a quite deliberate act. I may be wrong, but I suspect the Iranians will do everything they can to try to keep the strait blocked between now and the mid-term elections in November. Time will tell if that proves right. I would like the Minister to tell the House what we, working with the Americans and others, are trying to do to prevent that scenario, not least because of the economic consequences for us at home. Turning to those economic consequences, some 20% of the world’s oil passes through the strait of Hormuz. It would appear at present that very few tanker captains and/or their shipping line owners are prepared to effectively run the gauntlet through the strait. That being the case, surely it is strategic madness to deny the ability to grant future hydrocarbon exploration licences in the North sea. Surely, for reasons of strategic and energy security, we should be encouraging the oil companies to “Drill, baby, drill” in the North sea if we believe the Iranians will continue to block the strait of Hormuz. This strategic imperative overrides any ideological “obsession”—I use the word deliberately—by the current Energy Secretary.

Again, does my right hon. Friend recognise that mincing around with words, saying, “Oil and gas play an important part, and we pump millions of barrels every day” is simply not good enough? We need to exploit what is there because it gives us energy security. Yes, the price is set on the international market, but the gas we would drill in the North sea would go directly into our system. That is what gives us energy security.

My A-level economics is a bit rusty, but price is based on the relationship between supply and demand, and if we can increase the domestic supply of oil and gas, that has to be materially to our advantage. That brings me on to the defence investment plan.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

No, I will go on to the DIP. I tread warily because both the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), and the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) honourably resigned because they believed—it is in their resignation letters—that the resources were not sufficient to defend this country. The outgoing Defence Secretary resigned because, as he was very clear, the Treasury was only offering 2.68% of GDP by the year 2030, and yet the new Defence Secretary seems to be content with 2.69% of GDP in the same timeframe. We should remember that the chiefs of staff wanted £28 billion extra over the next four years, partly to implement the strategic defence review. They have been offered just over £15 billion, and £4.7 billion of that has not even been cleared by the Treasury and is subject to a subsequent public expenditure review. As I said earlier, a further £10.7 billion is actually financed by cuts, including to operational spending and training within the Ministry of Defence, which would then be allowed to recycle that money into the DIP, rather than surrendering it to the centre. When those two figures are added together, they more than match the so-called £15 billion of extra spending, so it is all smoke and mirrors. To all intents and purposes, for all the bluster, for the year of delay and for all the waiting, there is no extra money for defence in the defence investment plan. I regret to tell Ministers this, but the Russians can read, and so can the Chinese and, indeed, the mullahs in Tehran. We will not deter those people from further adventurism if the Government of this country cannot even tell us in which year they would achieve 3% of GDP. It is laughable to think that the defence investment plan is a credible piece of deterrence to our potential aggressors.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

Yes. The Minister gave way to me, so I must now return the favour.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Conservative Government’s equipment plan had a funding deficit of between £7 billion and £28 billion? It was filled with unfunded programmes for aircraft and ships. I struggle to understand why he calls the DIP “unfunded” when we have provided £298 billion of funding for it.

I have two things to say to the Minister. First, I am not sure if what he says is exactly right, but even if it were true, those programmes are still unfunded, pretty much, because there is no new money in the defence investment plan. Secondly, I have a small revelation—I was not going to mention this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I now I will—about the “no confidence” debate, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, that was won at the Oxford Union last autumn, at which Labour was slaughtered: the two proposers of the motion that night were Sir Robert Buckland and me. We have been invited back this autumn, so we will see whether we do better next time.

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Yes, certainly, although I am coming towards the end of my remarks.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly if he is drawing to a conclusion. Of course, the big “no confidence” debate was the 2024 general election. Before reflecting further on defence, can we go back to his enthusiasm for more exploration of oil and gas? The most optimistic timeline puts the recovery of oil and gas from Jackdaw and Rosebank five years away, but it could be 10 years away. How will that help us with the situation in the strait of Hormuz?

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s second question, that is all the more reason to get on with the exploration. On his first question, I know that we are all on our best behaviour for the Prime Minister’s departure, but he has some brass neck talking about big victories on the day that the Labour party effectively sacked its Prime Minister. I give him marks for chutzpah, but that is going a bit too far. For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Gentleman is even grinning at me while I say this. We all know why this debate was scheduled: it is because the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has gone AWOL, and Labour did not want a debate about the fact that he did not want to face scrutiny.

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not embarrass myself again. He should sit down and take a break. That is the reason why the Government have scheduled this debate, which is likely to finish more than two hours early—[Interruption.] Around two hours. These silly games that the Government play do not help them, and do not impress. There is a lot of hubris in this. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not take too much for granted. I will finish on what I hope will be a consensual point for the House: there will never be peace in the middle east while the mullahs run Iran. We now know that the horrific 7 October attack carried out by Hamas was almost certainly ordered from Tehran, in order to pre-empt the signing of an Abraham accord between Israel and Saudi Arabia; that is why it was done. The theocratic regime of the mullahs does not want stability. The mullahs do not want peace; they want destruction and death, be it in the Gulf or, if they could achieve it, here in the United Kingdom. In much the same way that Margaret Thatcher hoped and prayed, three years before the Berlin wall came down, that one day people in eastern Europe would be free, I hope and pray—I hope that the House will join me in this—that one day the ordinary, decent people of Iran will be free. They, the Gulf and the world will be all the better for it.

Order. It would be remiss of me if I did not put on record my thanks to Godfrey and Margaret—my Nigerian mum here—in the Tea Room.

That is very controversial!

Will we ever see the Cambridge Prime Minister at a debate?

Some colleagues have questioned the need for this debate. Like others, I welcome the news that we are going to proscribe the IRGC, but online, I have seen people who are basically antisemitic claiming that this is some kind of plot, that Jews are taking over the world, and that they were behind this decision. That is why it was right to have this debate today. It has been fantastic to hear colleagues from across the House reminding us of just how barbaric the regime is, and of the role it plays in the UK. I thank Ministers for the proscription, and I thank those who took part in this debate who talked about this barbaric regime.

I have long called in this House for the proscription of the IRGC. Last year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I sit, undertook an inquiry into transnational repression, which found that Iran was one of the most flagrant perpetrators of transnational repression globally. The IRGC uses proxy criminal networks, surveillance and direct threats to silence journalists, opposition groups and the Iranian diaspora in this country. How will they be protected by the proscription?

The Minister makes a very important point about operational independence, but elected councillors across the country, from different parties, have blatantly ignored the fact that these are terrorist organisations, and have supported them. They are there for the antisemitic comments that are made, and they have been shown recently to be stabbing effigies. These are elected people. The Minister for Security is in her place. It is important that there is no fear of going after councillors, just because they are elected; if they make these comments, they must be called out. I take this opportunity to place on the record how much I supported the Prime Minister and his family, and regretted the disgraceful fire-bombing of their family home. However, councillors, perhaps from another wing of politics, put out the most disgusting allegations about that story. They were completely untrue, but had clearly come straight out of Moscow, and were brought into the cyber and cognitive despair that we see being built. I wanted to make those points because I have not yet had a chance to do so. It is important that anybody who thinks that they can flout the laws that are being brought in can feel the full force of the law.

I wish to push the Minister on the point about social media disinformation. This is one of the biggest issues affecting our democracy, and western democracies around the world, when it comes to the threat from not only Iran but other hostile states. I am no closer to understanding which part of Government is responsible for leading on tackling this challenge. Where is the plan? Who is responsible? I wonder if the Minister can offer clarification on that.

Without asking the Minister to reveal any operationally sensitive information, for reasons that we all understand, is the Government’s position that they will not seek to use the capability of the international coalition for de-mining to clear mines from the strait unless, in effect, they have Iranian consent for de-mining?

On the threats to British citizens, two British citizens are detained in Iran in Evin prison: Craig and Lindsay Foreman. They are innocent. They have been arbitrarily detained there for more than one and a half years, after a flagrantly unfair trial. It has been reported that Craig has now been sentenced to a further two years, for reasons that seem entirely opaque. The couple have been on a hunger strike for 68 and 59 days, and both have lost significant weight. I welcome the appointment of a special envoy for consular cases and the state threat designation for the IRGC, but what steps are the Government taking that will give the Foremans and their family hope that welfare items will reach them, that full communications will be restored, and that the Government have a plan to get them home?