Iran
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Wendy Morton(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
First, I welcome the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) to his place on the Front Bench. I also welcome this debate, because there are few greater responsibilities of Government than protecting the security of our country and defending Britain’s interests abroad in what is an increasingly dangerous world.
I want to start by touching on the live situation, which remains precarious. It is clear that over the past week or so, escalation has spiralled because of Tehran’s serious violations of the ceasefire. We have seen Iran once again illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz, violating Oman’s sovereignty in doing so, and striking our allies including Bahrain and Kuwait. They must stop.
Full freedom of navigation must be restored in the strait of Hormuz, and the onus is on Iran to comply. Tolls are not the way forward, and we do welcome the decision by the US not to pursue this. But the question is: what will Britain contribute to efforts to secure the opening of the strait? Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) pressed the Foreign Secretary on that, and few answers were forthcoming. These are serious matters. I hope the Minister will be able to share more detail about what a multinational mission, which the Government have talked much about, could look like.
Iran is not simply another difficult state; it is a terrorist regime that has brutalised its own people, destabilised an entire region, armed terrorist organisations, pursued nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community, supplied drones for Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine and threatened Britain directly through hostile activity and terror plots on our own soil. The regime in Tehran has spread fear through its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. It has imprisoned, tortured and murdered its own citizens for daring to demand basic freedoms. It has exported antisemitism, sponsored terrorism and sought to intimidate democratic nations, including our own.
No one in the House should be under any illusion about the nature of the Iranian regime or the threat that it continues to pose. An end to the current conflict must address the reasons it began in the first place. We want a settlement that makes Britain safer, protects our close security allies and offers the Iranian people hope of a future free from the repression of the terrorist regime in Tehran.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
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?
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. Though we have tough days in this place, it is important that we remember why we are here and hold respect for one another. Deep down, we also understand the background to some of this conflict, so I agree totally with him. It is important that we use the right language in this place and have the right tone in these often difficult but important debates.
In all this, we need to address the causes of the conflict, not just seek to pause it, and recognise that any lasting settlement must deal with Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terrorism and its willingness to use instability as a tool of statecraft, particularly on the strait of Hormuz. That is what we are facing and dealing with.
Of course, Britain must play its part to help ensure that Iran can never again use the strait of Hormuz as a bargaining chip with which to threaten international security and hold the global economy to ransom. Those are the outcomes that Britain should be working towards. What are the Government’s objectives? What does the Minister believe success looks like? What support—militarily, diplomatically or otherwise—have the Government provided to our American allies during this latest phase of the conflict? What guarantees has Britain secured that Iran’s nuclear programme will be dismantled? Will we even be at the table like we were in 2015 for the joint comprehensive plan of action?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman from the SNP makes a very interesting point, but what did his party ever do on that front? I also remind Government Members that they have been in power for two years. They have had plenty of time. It is no good always throwing the “14 years” argument at us. They have had two years.
Our security and intelligence services deserve enormous credit for disrupting Iranian-linked plots against individuals in this country, but they should not be expected to carry that burden without the full backing of Government. Earlier this year, when protesters in Iran faced violent repression at the hands of the IRGC, the Opposition repeatedly offered to work constructively with Ministers to pass emergency legislation. Those offers were ignored, valuable time was lost and the threat continued.
The Government must explain how the designation will be enforced. How will those acting on behalf of the IRGC in Britain be identified? How will Iranian financial networks operating in the United Kingdom be dismantled? What steps are being taken to prevent our financial system from being used to launder funds linked to the Iranian regime and its terrorist activities? When will Ministers finally be able to say that Iran’s corrosive influence inside Britain has properly been disrupted? Announcements alone do not keep the public safe; enforcement does.
We should not forget the Iranian people. Our argument has never been with them; indeed, no people have suffered more at the hands of their regime than the people of Iran. Millions of brave Iranians have risked everything in pursuit of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Many have paid with their liberty, and many with their life. Tens of thousands were slaughtered earlier this year simply for wanting the basic freedoms that we enjoy.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
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.
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that we remember the victims and their families. That should push us to continue to seek not just answers, but actions and outcomes. Britain should always stand with those who seek freedom, and against those who seek to crush it.
The conflict has exposed some uncomfortable truths for us at home. National security depends on economic strength. Every threat to the strait of Hormuz sends shockwaves through global energy markets; every escalation in the Gulf has consequences for British businesses and households; and every hostile state that we seek to deter requires us to have credible military capability that supports our diplomacy. That is why Britain must match its global ambitions with the necessary resources. We continue to believe that Britain should spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. The threats facing our country have changed, and our response must reflect that reality.
The crisis underlines why energy security is national security. We should strengthen our domestic energy resilience, expand secure sources of supply and reduce our dependence on hostile regimes that seek to weaponise energy for political gain. A stronger economy, greater energy security and stronger national defence are not separate objectives. They are essential parts of the same national strategy of making Britain more resilient, more self-sufficient and better able to defend our interests in an increasingly dangerous world. Iran remains a grave threat. Its ideology has not changed, its hostility towards Britain has not changed and its sponsorship of terrorism has not changed.
We should not judge success simply by whether the missiles have stopped for today, but by whether the regime’s ability to threaten us is weakened, Britain’s security is stronger, our allies are safer and the Iranian people are closer to freedom. That requires more than expressions of concern and carefully worded statements; it requires a Government with clear objectives, a coherent strategy and the determination to use British influence in defence of Britain’s national interest. That is the leadership that has been so clearly missing throughout this crisis.
Lord Mandelson
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Wendy Morton(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton
Absolutely.
I will share something with the House today. I never set out to be a politician. I never in a million years expected to sit on these green Benches, but I did it to stand up for my local community, because I felt that they needed a voice. I might not get everything right—none of us do—but one thing I will do is strive to be a voice for those who put me in this place, and let us never forget that we were put here by others.
Turning back to vetting, I would like the Minister to explain to us whether Peter Mandelson went through the exact same vetting process that a normal diplomat would have gone through if they were to take up the post in Washington. The role of UK ambassador to the US is one of the most important roles in our Foreign Office.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
To my right hon. Friend’s question about vetting, can she foresee a circumstance where a professional diplomat would be given clearance if they had sold passports and taken undeclared loans?
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes a really important. This is about probity and evidence and making sure, for the reputation of this country, that we are appointing the right people. I should declare that I once was a member of the diplomatic service, and I know that the people who serve our country as diplomats are of the highest integrity, and they have my trust. When it comes to making political appointments, as today’s debate has shown, there are still questions that need to be asked.
The other thing that is rather strange is that everyone seemed to know that there were questions around Peter Mandelson. There were questions about the sort of person he was—I think he was once featured on “Spitting Image” as the Prince of Darkness—but where was the Prime Minister, and where was his judgment? Was his head stuck in the sand? We Conservative Members are aware that the Prime Minister had been glowing about the talents of Peter Mandelson. Only in February, he said at the British embassy in Washington:
“Peter is the right person to help us work with President Trump and to take the special relationship from strength to strength”.
We are aware that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, pushed for Mandelson to become ambassador, sidelining long-serving experienced diplomats. We are aware that Keir Starmer assured MPs that “full due process” was followed—
Rural Communities
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Wendy Morton(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I think we need to get down to some basic facts today. For all this Government’s propositions, the reality is that people are feeling this on the ground. My constituency crosses the two counties of West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire. North Yorkshire, which is Conservative-run, has seen millions of pounds of grant reductions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) touched on. A reduction in the services grant has knocked £14 million off the budget, and the fairer funding grant has knocked £20 million off it.
The reality is that people are starting to wonder whether the Government understand rural communities and rural counties at all. Within North Yorkshire there are huge areas of deprivation, but they have now seen their money cut because the overall situation of the county knocks them out of the picture. A county like North Yorkshire can also be very sparsely populated and have unique challenges that mean that funding needs to be in place.
That is against the backdrop of the attacks on farming. Ninety-two per cent of my constituency is rural or rural-related agricultural business. Through agriculture my constituency supplies £2.2 billion to the Exchequer and to GDP, and there has been huge concern and widespread disbelief at the policies that the Government have introduced. Even with the U-turns they knocked out just before Christmas, there is still huge uncertainty and, crucially—even with those U-turns—a lack of faith about investing in the future.
We are talking not just about farms; there is the whole ecosystem of rural economies. I have been to businesses in my constituency who hire out plant machinery not just to farmers during the harvest but to help ensure that the countryside and landscapes are managed. North Yorkshire and parts of West Yorkshire, including where I live, have huge historic areas that people visit for tourism. If the countryside is not maintained, there will be less income from people coming to visit. People trying to make a living in these rural communities—as they have done for decades and centuries—have seen a huge attack from every angle.
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. Whether in rural North Yorkshire or on the edge of the west midlands where we have some fantastic rural landscapes, surely the fact of the matter is that we have a Labour Government who really do not understand the countryside or the countryside way of life. They are intent on covering it in concrete.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. That is the view of a lot of people we speak to in and around rural constituencies: they say that the Government either do not understand these communities or, worse, they do not care. People feel there is this constant attitude of, “You don’t need the money. We’re going to take it to the urban areas.”
At Prime Minister’s questions, we saw the Prime Minister trying to say, “We have got this bit of the economy and that bit of the economy.” That is all very well, but it does not feel like that for people sitting at home when the weather is freezing cold, wondering where they can make cuts to heat their homes. That happens in areas of deprivation in and around my constituency, which is deemed to be affluent—because of that people do not get the money they need.
I want to touch briefly on how good agricultural land is being taken over by solar farms. I am fed up to the back teeth of listening to Ministers say, “We must no longer be reliant on petrochemical dictators to control our energy.” China is a dictatorship, and it controls 90% of the processed materials for renewable energy. I would have a huge amount of respect for the Minister if, in her summing up, she admitted that the dictatorship of China is no better than some of the dictatorships of the petrochemical states. We are just transferring the problem from one region to another. Ministers should not pretend that they are any different.
“Chapter 4A
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Wendy Morton(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith
I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.