What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Before I call Esther McVey to move the motion, and then the Minister to respond, I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate. No such notice has been given. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Order. I assume that the Minister is not suggesting that the debate has been in any way out of order.
When I was in government we conducted one of the largest exercises, Exercise Mighty Oak, which involved more than 4,000 people testing the effect of a power outage. That exercise demonstrated that it cascaded very rapidly and that it very rapidly affected water supply, transport and other public services. Will the Minister confirm that he has had an opportunity to read the findings from that exercise, and can he update the House on what point the Government have reached in implementing its recommendations?
I am really worried about this urgent question. We sat here last night and talked about requiring honesty from public servants, and we voted on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, but as we have heard from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), serious questions have not been answered. The chair of NESO is paid the equivalent of £230,000 a year. Has the Minister met him recently? May I ask about the whistleblowers, who were apparently told by the chief executive yesterday that they had let down the company? On the question that my right hon. Friend asked about record keeping, what discussions has he had with NESO about whether she is correct?
I have some sympathy with the Minister’s situation, because this is a highly technical issue, and presumably he will have been briefed to deal with this urgent question by the senior management at NESO—or at least they will have briefed the civil servants who briefed him. What is bothering me is the lack of independence in this process. It appears that the senior management made an all-staff call in which they denounced the whistleblowers as having let the company down. From what the Minister said, it appears that the firm that is going to conduct the inquiry is an independent legal firm, which will be paid by the senior management of NESO. Would it not be better, from the point of view of objectivity and transparency, for Ofgem to engage whoever is going to conduct this inquiry, not the very people whose own careers will be on the line if the whistleblowers are vindicated?
Balancing the grid is really important, but why is the cost of so doing rising from about £1.5 billion a year to £10 billion by 2030?
Can I just point out that the very fact that the Minister is at the Dispatch Box answering this urgent question is itself an indictment of the confidence that not only the public, but people working in NESO, have in the resilience of the system? Can I also point out that commentators have been warning for a decade or more about the risk to the security of supply from the over-reliance on intermittent renewables? While we in the Conservative party have learned that lesson, and are determined to have a much more robust and secure electricity policy, why are the Government doubling down on the risks they are creating by rushing ahead with renewables, vastly expensive grid investment that would otherwise be unnecessary and, of course, these absurd and obscene constraint payments to wind farm operators that cannot feed their electricity into the grid and get paid for it anyway, costing customers billions of pounds?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
I will give way to my colleague on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
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.
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.
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 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—
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I call Mark Sewards for the final Back-Bench contribution—not on a five-minute speaking limit but with 60 minutes of debate left.
Mr Sewards, you have left many minutes on the clock for a change.
Can I start by thanking the Prime Minister for the way that he responded to the murder of Ann Widdecombe last week? This is the first opportunity I have had on the Floor of the House to commemorate her life. A lot has been said about how she died. I want to focus on celebrating the life she lived. Ann was a woman of high principle and profound beliefs, with a wicked sense of humour—a wonderful combination of being a serious person who did not take herself too seriously. She changed her faith from Anglican to Catholic and from the Conservative party to the Brexit party, but she always remained part of the Conservative family. You might not always have agreed with her, but Ann Widdecombe was a woman who said what she meant and meant what she said. Hers was an honesty that made our politics better. Her wit and forthrightness sat alongside a deep humanity and decency. Ann had wonderful turns of phrase. She said: “We need less political correctness and more political courage.” She said: “If we deny our culture, become nothing and everything, that weakens us.” She also said: “It is a truth universally unacknowledged at Westminster that there is life after politics.” With that in mind, I turn to this Prime Minister’s final questions. Mr Speaker, I wanted to make sure that I got the tone right today, so I looked back at the Prime Minister’s final questions to Boris Johnson. Luckily for the Prime Minister, I plan to be much gentler than he was that day. Week after week, the Prime Minister and I have clashed at these Dispatch Boxes and rarely agreed on anything, but there is one thing that I admired. When President Zelensky was attacked in the White House, the Prime Minister showed leadership and invited him to Downing Street. That was the right thing to do. Ukraine is on the frontline in the battle for freedom, so does the Prime Minister agree that cross-party support for their cause must endure?
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. No doubt, he will be disappointed that he will not be emulating his hero Harold Wilson in winning multiple elections. However, we all hope that he may be about to emulate him in another way: by being the Prime Minister when England win the world cup. That is something that every single one of us in the House should get behind—especially the SNP. [Laughter.] As Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister led his party to a landslide after a historic defeat—I fully intend to do the same—but if you want to lead this country, you should set out your plans to do so. We have, but one politician intends to spend the summer avoiding scrutiny, refusing to set out his plans. Does the Prime Minister not agree that what the country deserves is a televised debate between Nigel Farage and Count Binface?
I know how much the Prime Minister has come to enjoy our exchanges—in fact, in the King’s Speech debate he told me that on difficult days my input was “always a ray of sunshine.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 24.] He might not have answered many of the questions I asked him, but at least he turned up. It is important to respect Parliament, so does the Prime Minister agree that his successor should come to this place and answer questions rather than scurrying away for the summer?
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and for paying tribute to so many of the people he has been able to help. In fact, I remember when I started this job, the Prime Minister was very helpful to me, saying that I would not last the year. Life comes at you fast. [Laughter.] He spent a long time laughing at how I had lost control of my party; I think he should have been paying attention to his Back Benchers instead of mine. Everyone in politics would do well to remember how quickly political fortunes can change. I know that the Prime Minister has been asked and that he is being diplomatic, but on that note, does he have any advice for his successor?
That is a lovely statement that the Prime Minister has just made to Pooja; I am sure that the whole House will agree. I think that the whole House will also agree that he gave a very diplomatic answer to the question I asked on advice to his successor. Having heard that answer, I say this to Labour MPs with as much goodwill as I can muster—[Laughter.]—we have been where you are. Changing Prime Minister is not a silver bullet; indeed, it may be that the Labour party’s troubles are only just beginning. Solving the fundamental problems in this country will require difficult decisions, and you also need to know how to get things done. The Prime Minister once said that when he pulled the levers, nothing happened. Why did he think that was?
The Prime Minister may not think so now, but it is a tribute to him that not a single sitting Labour MP could beat him. Not the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) who could not count her taxes, not the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) who could not count how many phones she had lost—“lost, lost, lost”—and definitely not the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) who could not count to 81. This is my last exchange with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I know how much his wife and children mean to him, and that they are in the Gallery. As everyone here knows, our families make a huge sacrifice for our choice to enter public life. I hope that he will allow me to draw our time together to a close by thanking them for the love and support they have given him throughout his time in office.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.