Iran

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Mr Francois]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed. He had an opportunity to hear from the future Prime Minister yesterday, but the current Prime Minister is in place until the end of term, as he knows.

Let me move on to questions raised by Conservative Members, particularly about the statutory instrument. There was a question about the designation of the IRGC and the other two entities. I do not wish to prejudge the decisions of this House and the House of Lords, but I hope that the statutory instrument will be passed by this place immediately after this debate, and will make its way through the other place very swiftly, hopefully by the end of the week. The statutory instrument would then be in force by the end of the week.

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Mr Falconer]

It is important that we designate all three organisations. Two of them have links to Iran, and one of them has been named in relation to barbarous attacks on the Jewish community in this country. It is right that we take this action. I am very pleased to be joined by the Security Minister, who will introduce the statutory instrument shortly.

I heard Conservative Members express a desire for us to move quickly on this question. I recognise the concern in the House—it was reflected in some of the debate this afternoon—to ensure that we balance the need to take firm action against the Iranian regime with maintaining diplomatic relations with it. We could hear that concern in some of the exchanges between Members. I believe that the tools that we are introducing following the Jonathan Hall review get that balance right. These are firm measures in response to totally unacceptable behaviour. I have summoned the Iranian ambassador within the last week, and I have instructed my officials to do so again.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon referred to normal diplomacy. We have to be absolutely clear that we wish to maintain diplomatic relations with Iran, but we will not accept attacks on people in our country, whether they are Jewish or diplomats from elsewhere. We will not accept arson attacks on ambulances. All that is totally unacceptable, and the United Kingdom—with the support of everyone in this House, I believe—will put in place the measures we need to ensure that these attacks cannot continue.