Iran
I am.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Iran
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Iran
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.
- Hansard source
National Security
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
National Security
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
National Security
I call Mark Sewards for the final Back-Bench contribution—not on a five-minute speaking limit but with 60 minutes of debate left.
- Hansard source
National Security
Mr Sewards, you have left many minutes on the clock for a change.
- Hansard source
Engagements
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?
- Hansard source
Engagements
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?
- Hansard source
Engagements
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?
- Hansard source
Engagements
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?
- Hansard source
Engagements
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?
- Hansard source
Engagements
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.
- Hansard source
Iran
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?
- Hansard source
Iran
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.
- Hansard source
Iran
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.
- Hansard source
Iran
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.
- Hansard source
Iran
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.
- Hansard source
Iran
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.
- Hansard source
Iran
Yes. The Minister gave way to me, so I must now return the favour.
- Hansard source
Iran
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.
- Hansard source
Iran
Yes, certainly, although I am coming towards the end of my remarks.
- Hansard source
Iran
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.
- Hansard source
Iran
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.
- Hansard source
Iran
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?
- Hansard source
National Security
The hon. Member has 59 minutes left.
- Hansard source
Regional Accents and Social Mobility
It is a pleasure to listen to and take part in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing the debate and on her personal, informative and engaging speech. I had the pleasure of welcoming the Youth Parliament to my county last year, and I was delighted to hear from all those young people from across the country; it was a pleasure to listen to them. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned her pronunciation of “tooth”; I was born on the “two-th” of June—I had to continually be corrected on that one. I must declare an interest, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for youth employment. I have the pleasure of working with Youth Employment UK on promoting youth employment in all its forms, the role of young people in the economy and ensuring that young people’s voices are heard. I also co-chair the APPG on men and boys’ issues, and it is a pleasure to work with the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys in that role on improving the wellbeing, opportunities and life chances of our boys. I think it is clear that this is one of the things that drives me in politics. As we have rightly heard today, a regional accent must never be seen as a badge of shame, and I will come on to talk about my mother’s experience of that. Every single one of our regional accents—from the north-east to the south-west, the Welsh valleys to the highlands of Scotland, Merseyside through to the Black Country and down to the Thames estuary—is a reminder of the people and places that make this country so special, and that is why we have enjoyed this debate so much. After 10 years of living and working in Wales, I have had a very messy accent. In my county of Sussex, our native accent has largely been replaced, except for a few old place names and words—for example, a twitten is an alley—due to the rise of mass education and accent correction in favour of perceived “better” pronunciation. Otherwise, I would be speaking more akin to the west country accent and using the rhotic “r”. That was an accent that my dad had, as a Sussex farmer, and that two Cornish people in my office would recognise. My dad married my mum, who was from Stoke and had elocution lessons at grammar school, where she had to wear a boater, not eat in the street and most certainly not chew gum in the street. When she took dad to football, most people presumed she was in the wrong end, watching the wrong team. Pride in where she came from was undermined by the fact that her accent as a youngster was deemed to need to be ironed out, as the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) said. I had the pleasure of serving as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions for over five years, and a title I fought for and had the honour of holding was Minister for Social Mobility. I know there is a huge amount of talent in every part of Britain, which is why I care so much about ensuring that everybody has a chance to succeed, no matter where they come from, their postcode or, of course, their accent. I would like to share are a couple of things from my time as a Minister. My very Liverpudlian private office lead had about 15 different ways of saying no to many of my bright ideas, which I learnt meant how much she liked them. At the DWP, we created 140 youth hubs, which I am delighted this Government are taking forward, and Members have highlighted the importance of young people’s confidence. In creating those youth hubs, we learned from the Birmingham model, under the leadership of another well-known and very well thought of former mayor, Andy Street. Manchesterism is now extremely fashionable, and I think we are all delighted to highlight the fact that there is so much talent and ability across the country. The DWP is unique in the fact that it is in every single community, and our second headquarters was in Leeds. One thing I found during my time working with the amazing civil service was that too many people cannot progress in that Department or more widely, because if they do not have the ability to get to London or be supported there, and perhaps if they do not have the right accent, they do not get the social mobility and the opportunities they need to progress. I worked with the care leavers in our Department and really listened to and learned from them. I hope that that is continuing, as I know this is a focus for the Government. Hon. Members have rightly spoken passionately, in their wonderful accents, about their constituencies. The hon. Members for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Leigh and Atherton spoke about the BBC accent. When I, a former Croydon schoolgirl, worked at the BBC, they briefly tried to train my accent out of me. Again, that was about softening an accent, or perhaps it was about improving it—we need to read between those lines. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—good luck to Hansard on capturing all the magical recollections that he shared—shows off his magnificent accent. Once we have had time to tune in, frankly, we never get a chance to tune out. It was lovely to hear about learning phrases across generations; when we hold on to our past, our family and our area, it really makes a difference. Research has found that when interview candidates demonstrate technical knowledge or speak confidently, they are subject to less accent-based differential treatment. It is important to challenge the Government on the fact that they are lowering their ambitions around vocational qualifications and moving away from high standards and specialist knowledge—I leave that with the Minister to think about. My party is very much about meritocracy. We should be raising people up, and giving our young people the best start and the skills and knowledge they need to succeed, instead of lowering expectations and pushing them down to the bottom. That has been highlighted in speeches today. As I have said before in the House, you will do great when you are your true, authentic self—that will serve you. Confidence in being ourselves is everything we need. The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has rightly said: “diversity and inclusion should never put any individual or group at a disadvantage, and should never damage cohesion and morale in the workplace”, and that anti-discrimination should not be “used as a mechanism to undermine meritocracy”. That is the nub of what we are talking about today. What is the point in pushing for us all to be the same? As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) said, this is not about conformity. We might have different approaches to this issue, but the challenge is there for us all, and we need to find a way to fix it. We need to insist on not seeing people as victims who need saving. We need to see people as talented individuals with agency, or we risk reinforcing stereotypes and pulling up the social mobility ladder. The new legal duties may sometimes make us politicians feel good about ourselves, but all too often the outcomes fail to live up to the talk. That, again, has been highlighted today. As the public sector equality duty shows, such duties can lead to more harm being done in the name of equality. We need to recognise that. The ongoing obsession with putting people into boxes and categorising them according to their characteristics is not the answer, as I think we all agree. It leads only to more division when, frankly, we need less. Instead, we should be celebrating achievement, holding up examples of excellence and promoting role models in every walk of life. In the age of social media influencers, a man named Wilfred Pickles is a somewhat unlikely role model, but his reading of the news on BBC radio during the war, in his broad Yorkshire accent, broke barriers and redefined the idea of who could be on a national broadcaster. Young people today, no matter where they are from, should feel confident that their accent will never be a barrier to them reaching their potential. That will be possible only if we build a society that is focused on individual merit and access to opportunity for all, rather than group characteristics and tick-box exercises. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will she commit to a full assessment of the implementation of the socioeconomic duty in Scotland and Wales, and can she update us on what conversations she has had about it with the devolved Administrations? What impact does the Minister think devolution has had on promoting social mobility in the regions and nations? I certainly have my views on that, and I am interested in the those of the Minister. Conservative Members believe people should have the opportunity to succeed in life regardless of background or accent with the opportunity to go as far as their talent and hard work takes them. We should never judge people solely on protected characteristics or limit their chances and ambition based on where they are from. I agree with the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton: it is not about how we speak but how we listen and, crucially, act to make a difference in social mobility and open the doors for others.
- Hansard source
National Security
It is right that these measures have been brought forward, and the Opposition will support them. The powers Parliament created through the National Security Act exist for precisely this purpose. They are there to respond to hostile state activity and those who threaten our national security. It is right that they are now being used. That said, we have consistently argued that these powers should have been deployed sooner, particularly against the IRGC. We made the case repeatedly because the threat was clear. While it is disappointing that it has taken this long, it is nevertheless welcome that action is now being taken against these organisations. As we heard throughout today’s earlier debate, Iran continues to pose a serious threat to the United Kingdom. It seeks to intimidate, to interfere and to undermine our security, often through the use of proxies and affiliated organisations. That is why it is right that the regulations do not focus solely on the IRGC itself. The Iranian regime does not operate through one organisation alone. It relies on a network of proxies to spread fear, conduct hostile activity and threaten those it regards as opponents. The Minister has already set out clearly why each of these organisations meets the test for designation, so I will not repeat those arguments, but it is important that we recognise the danger they pose.
- Hansard source
National Security
We put in place powers that assist in this. The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe, regardless of which party is in office. We introduced the National Security Act 2023. The Minister and I have had many debates on this subject, pushing for action, and we have been clear and consistent that the powers should have been used much more quickly. If the Government are now doing what is necessary to protect the public, they will have our support. National security should not be a political football. Groups such as the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right demonstrate how quickly new organisations can emerge, targeting people here in the United Kingdom while often acting on behalf of hostile states. We know that their activities have included threats against dissidents and particular hostility towards Britain’s Jewish community. That brings me to a wider point. The rise in antisemitism we have seen in recent years is deeply disturbing. Jewish people in this country should never have to look over their shoulder because of who they are or what they believe. Equally, those who have come to Britain to escape authoritarian regimes should be able to live here free from intimidation and fear. Protecting those communities is not optional; it is a fundamental responsibility of the state. These organisations, and those who support them, should face the full force of the law. Parliament has provided the powers; now they must be used robustly. When the 2026 Act was before this House, we spent a great deal of time scrutinising how the powers would work in practice. We asked whether there were gaps in the legislation and whether hostile actors might find ways around them. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that the operation of these new powers is being kept under close review, their effectiveness is being assessed, and, if weaknesses emerge, the Government will not hesitate to act. But legislation alone will never be enough. The organisations we are dealing with today are driven by ideologies that reject everything this country stands for. They seek to divide communities, spread hatred and undermine confidence in our democratic way of life. They do not believe in debate; they believe in intimidation. They do not persuade; they threaten. That is why our response has to be broader than enforcement alone. Of course we need strong policing. Of course we need capable intelligence agencies. Of course we need robust legislation. But we also need confidence in who we are as a country. We need to defend the values that unite us: democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Those are not abstract ideas. They are the very things these organisations seek to attack. If we are serious about protecting our national security, we must do both: relentlessly pursue those who threaten us, while strengthening the resilience of the society they seek to undermine. That is why we support the regulations today. They are an important step and they send a clear message that those acting on behalf of hostile states, or supporting those who do, will find no safe haven in the United Kingdom.
- Hansard source
National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk
May I associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) about the management of NESO creating a hostile environment for technicians in the distribution centres? Like the Minister, I have met the individuals in the control rooms, and I have nothing but admiration for them, so for them to be condemned as enemies of the company by being whistleblowers is profoundly wrong. We have heard Members raise other problems. In particular, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) spoke about small blackouts in his constituency, and the Minister brushed that off as a little local problem. The reality is that at the moment we use about 36 GW of power, and during the winter we use about 45GW of power, and that is before we have electrified transportation and before we have invested a huge amount in data centres and artificial intelligence. Blackouts are indicators that the grid is not working. A small blackout in Tunbridge Wells is an indicator that there could be big blackouts in the future. What is the Minister doing to resolve these problems?
- Hansard source
New Nuclear Energy Projects
Many of my constituents work at Torness power station and are deeply disappointed that the SNP Government are blocking new nuclear development in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that the nuclear industry provides highly skilled jobs and that it is a grave mistake by the SNP Government to block them coming to Scotland?
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate my neighbour the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing it. I understand that a football match is taking place tonight, and I want to reassure colleagues that I will not detain them until 7.30 pm—it will be a relatively short contribution. The A1 is not simply a road through Northumberland; it is one of the United Kingdom’s most important strategic routes linking London, the north-east of England and the south-east of Scotland and beyond. For my constituents in the Scottish Borders, the A1 is a vital economic and social artery. It connects communities in eastern borders with Newcastle, Edinburgh and the wider national transport network. It is used every day by people travelling to work, attending hospital appointments, visiting family and transporting goods. Yet large stretches of the A1 through Northumberland and the Scottish Borders remain single carriageway. That is simply not good enough for a road of such national importance. The last Conservative Government approved plans to dual 13 miles of the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham. Those improvements would have created a continuous dual carriageway from Newcastle to Ellingham, improving journey times, strengthening connectivity and, most importantly, making the road significantly safer. It was therefore deeply disappointing that the Labour Government cancelled the scheme shortly after taking office. Years of planning had taken place, development consent had been granted, and tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money had already been spent. The decision to abandon the project was short-sighted. Businesses do not recognise the border between England and Scotland when they make investment decisions or move goods around the country. The failure to invest properly and improve the A1 in Northumberland has a direct impact on businesses, workers and families in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. Too often, debates about transport investment focus on major cities. Rural and cross-border communities are expected to tolerate slower, less reliable and less safe infrastructure. That imbalance must be readdressed. I will not focus my frustration only on the UK Government, because the Scottish Government, which is responsible for the A1 on my side of the border, bear equal responsibility for investment in the road and have also significantly failed to invest in the A1 in Berwickshire and the Scottish Borders. Serious accidents happen all too frequently, causing significant diversions through small, rural communities and upsetting local residents. There is great concern about some of the junctions on the A1, particularly around Reston, where local campaigners have been campaigning for years. I pay tribute to Barrie Forrest and the community council team from Reston who have been campaigning for the A1 junction at Reston and Coldingham to be improved, because they rightly identify it as a safety concern. The Scottish Government need to play their part in improving this important road as well. Upgrading the A1 would support tourism, agriculture, manufacturing and the many small businesses that form the backbone of the economies of Northumberland and the Scottish Borders. It would improve access to jobs and services and help unlock investment across the wider region. There is also an overwhelming safety argument, as we have heard already from the hon. Member for North Northumberland. Anyone who regularly travels along the single-carriageway sections of the A1 understands the risks caused by heavy traffic and slow-moving vehicles, and the limited opportunities to overtake safely. Minor alterations and isolated safety measures are not a substitute for the substantial upgrade that the route requires. This should not be treated as an English project or a Scottish project: it is a United Kingdom infrastructure project.
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Part of the reason why the Scottish Government have not invested in the route—I notice that none of the Scottish National party Members are present—is that they see it as a road going to England. Perhaps they make decisions to invest in other parts of the Scottish transport network—maybe not ferries or the A9—but routes going to England do not get the share of the resources that they require. This is undoubtedly a United Kingdom infrastructure project in which both Government should invest. I conclude by urging the Government to reconsider their decision not to go ahead with these improvement works, to restore the Morpeth to Ellingham scheme and to work with the Scottish Government to set out a credible, long-term plan to upgrade the A1 through Northumberland and the Scottish Borders. Our communities have waited long enough. They deserve a road that is safe, reliable and fit for purpose.
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
The Minister said that National Highways is engaging with the Scottish Government, but it is really important that there is engagement at ministerial level. There is cross-party support for improvements—I think we all recognise their importance—but unless we get that ministerial drive pushing it forward, I do not think we are going to get what we want.
- Hansard source
Livestock
8. What recent discussions he has had with relevant stakeholders on Scottish livestock numbers.
- Hansard source
Livestock
Scotland’s beef breeding herd is in trouble; it is down 373,000 in the last decade. There are also declines in dairy cattle, pigs and chickens, which show that the industry is in distress. In her response, the Minister said that food security is national security, so why do she and the Secretary of State let the SNP use devolution as a shield while stripping Scotland’s larder bare?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q7. Books are going to be written about how a Mayor of Manchester has managed to out-manoeuvre a sitting Prime Minister with a 170-seat majority and take the keys to No. 10. The Prime Minister appears to have been brought down by an inability to articulate a plan for government so it must be tough to be replaced by a man who refuses to say whether he has even got a plan. As the Prime Minister bows out, done in by his hon. Friends, does he agree that in a few months’ time we will all be missing him?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The leader of Surrey county council wrote to the Department for Transport on 27 March with serious concerns about the future funding arrangements for the A31 corridor scheme in my constituency. Despite my writing twice to the Secretary of State for Transport, and despite being told in response to a written parliamentary question on 18 May that the Government would respond as soon as possible, nearly four months later neither I nor Surrey county council have had a response. Can you therefore advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, what further avenues are available to me to secure a substantive response from that Department, so that my constituents, Surrey county council and all those affected by this scheme can finally receive the clarity they have been waiting for?
- Hansard source
Iran
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?
- Hansard source
Iran
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?