PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Middle East - 23 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I want to update the House on the UK military operations in the middle east, but before I do so let me express my total disgust at the antisemitic attack in north London overnight. Our thoughts are with the Jewish community today. The House will have a statement on the attack from the Security Minister after this statement.

I will start this statement by thanking every single person across defence. They are working flat out, whether they are our senior leaders, our junior ranks—military and civilians alike—our planners in Permanent Joint Headquarters, our counter-drone units protecting coalition bases, our air defence teams in Cyprus, our fast jet pilots across the region or our sailors in the eastern Mediterranean. I say to them, on behalf of the House: you are proving yet again that you are the best of Britain in action.

In the fast-moving events in the middle east, we are maintaining a clear, consistent approach. As I said in my statement to the House last week, the UK Government’s decisions and actions are founded on three principles. The first principle is defensive and taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence. That is why I have been putting vital military assets into the region since January. The second principle is co-ordination with allies, and leading and co-ordinating our responses with NATO allies and with partners, including the US, the G7, the E5 and Gulf nations. The third principle is ensuring a legal basis for our decisions, allowing Ministers to make sound choices and allowing our military to operate with the fullest confidence. UK action remains grounded in those principles and our purpose: to protect British people, protect British bases and protect British allies.

Iran is a threat to us all. It is lashing out, and its attacks across the region are escalating. Since the start of the war it has attacked 12 countries, and has fired more than 3,500 ballistic missiles and drones. Both military and civilians are in its sights. Oil refineries have been bombed, embassies and bases have been targeted, and commercial ships have been hit. Some allies, such as France and the United States, have had service personnel killed, and the House will want to join me in offering our condolences to their families and to their comrades. In conflict it is never possible to remove risk, but I am able to say that all UK personnel so far are fully accounted for.

Iran’s attacks are widespread and disruptive. I can confirm to the House that in the early hours of Friday morning two Iranian missiles were launched in the direction of Diego Garcia, our joint UK and US base. One fell short of its target, while the other was brought down short of its target. Neither got close to Diego Garcia. The UK was not required to take action, and normal operations continue. I totally condemn Iran’s reckless attacks. Iran must stop; it must de-escalate. We want to see this war end now.

My priority as Defence Secretary is the protection of UK personnel, and I continue to keep the force protection across the region at the very highest levels. Those measures are reviewed daily by both the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of Joint Operations to ensure that our personnel are as safe as possible. We know, however, that Iran’s aggression and intent reach beyond the middle east, so we continue to track the potential threats here at home. Over the last year we have been boosting our defence, including our cyber defences, and tightening base security. I want to thank the military police and Police Scotland for their quick work to arrest and then charge two individuals who approached the Clyde base last week and unsuccessfully attempted to enter.

Let me turn to our UK defensive operations in the region. Since January, weeks before this conflict started, we took significant steps to pre-position Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone teams, radars and air defences in the region. Those advanced preparations made a real difference, and meant that from day one we have been defending actively and mounting those actions to protect ourselves and to protect our allies. When Iran started hitting out, putting British people and British allies and service personnel at risk, I committed further resources to the region, including more fighter jets, helicopters and a warship.

RAF and Navy pilots have now racked up nearly 900 flying hours in defence of Cyprus, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. We have more jets in the region than we have had at any time in the last 15 years. There are an extra 500 air defence personnel in Cyprus, and as more military capabilities are committed to the eastern Mediterranean, we are working closely with the Republic of Cyprus to co-ordinate the contributions of allies, including the US, France and Greece, to reinforce the security of Cyprus. I can confirm that HMS Dragon has arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, and will tonight begin operational integration into Cyprus’s defence alongside allies. More widely, UK Space Command is monitoring daily Iranian missile activity, and provided early warning to our armed forces and our allies operating across the region.

Our military and our industry in the UK have a shared mission: to step up support and to help defend Gulf partners during this conflict. Last week, we brought together Gulf ambassadors, defence attachés and UK defence firms, and the Ministry of Defence has now established Taskforce Sabre with industry to support partners across the middle east with rapid procurement. We will soon deploy lightweight multiple launchers to Bahrain, along with training, and we will deploy Rapid Sentry to Kuwait. Rapid Sentry is a battle-tested, ground-based air defence missile system that has already proved highly effective for UK forces in taking down drones in the region.

I turn to the strait of Hormuz. People and businesses are increasingly worried about the economic impact of this war, and the Prime Minister will chair a Cobra meeting later this afternoon to discuss the economic impact, which I will attend. Iran is holding the strait of Hormuz hostage by laying mines, targeting ships—including red ensign vessels—and putting lives in danger. This is complex, and any resolution requires close work with allies and multinational support. The UK, along with 29 other nations, signed a joint statement late last week that condemned in the strongest terms the attacks on unarmed ships, strongly backed the freedom of navigation, and expressed our readiness

“to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.”

I discussed this matter with E5 Defence Ministers last week, and we have now deployed UK military planners to US Central Command to develop options. We are looking to accelerate new UK minehunting and drone technology, and on Friday we confirmed that the current permission that we have given for the US to use UK bases for defensive strikes against specific Iranian targets extends to missile sites and capabilities that threaten the strait of Hormuz. We are determined to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in securing the strait, so that commercial ships can move freely and confidently again.

This House knows that the demands on defence are rising. While we rightly focus on dealing with the immediate conflict in the middle east, we will continue to step up our support to Ukraine, to fulfil our NATO commitments, to sign vital defence contracts, and to deal with Putin’s serious threats to the High North. This House also knows that our adversaries will want us distracted and may try to take advantage of events in the middle east for their own gain. We will not let them. As a Government, we remain determined to make Britain safer, more secure at home and strong abroad.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing I received from his officials this afternoon? I join him in putting on record my utter condemnation of the arson attack committed in Golders Green last night. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our sympathy to all who were affected and to the wider Jewish community. I also join the Secretary of State in expressing our condolences to the families of all allied personnel who have lost their lives in the current conflict, and in thanking the police for preventing potentially serious nefarious activity at Faslane.

The potential economic ramifications for our constituents from Iran’s aggressive closure of the strait of Hormuz should concern us all. In that context, can the Defence Secretary tell the House what he understands to be the implications of the US President’s latest remarks, specifically on deferring strikes on power plants? Can he also tell us what further naval capability he intends to deploy to assist in securing the strait of Hormuz?

It is extremely concerning that Iran fired long-range ballistic missiles at UK sovereign territory on Diego Garcia. I am grateful for the Defence Secretary’s update, but why did it take so long for the Government to confirm something that the whole world had been reporting on, and what action will he take to respond to those wholly unjustified attacks? Can he confirm whether the potential firing range of this Iranian missile implies that it could reach well into Europe? 

When it comes to our own air defence, it is very welcome that the RAF Regiment has excelled in using Rapid Sentry, procured under the previous Government, to intercept multiple drones, and we pay tribute to all our personnel in the region at the present moment. We also welcome the fact that this capability is now being deployed to support our allies in the region, and we hope that the air defence system the Secretary of State is sending to Bahrain will be in position as soon as possible.

However, we note reports that at least one of the Iranian missiles fired at Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer. Is it correct that the US intercepted this missile before the Government decided on Saturday to grant the US further permission for the use of our bases? Does this not once again underline Labour’s extraordinary double standards in that, until their latest U-turn, the Government had been relying on the US to defend us while denying it the use of our bases? The reports that an Iranian missile headed for Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer underline the critical importance of our Type 45s to our own air defence, so while we welcome HMS Dragon finally arriving, does the Secretary of State regret not sending her much sooner?

As the Secretary of State knows, the Type 45 Sea Viper air defence system relies on Aster missiles. Last week, I wrote to urge him to use HM Treasury reserve funding for the middle east operations to urgently procure the missiles needed, including the lightweight multi-role missile for the Wildcat and Rapid Sentry, ASRAAM—advanced short-range air-to-air missile—for our fighter jets, and Aster for the Type 45s. Since then, he has confirmed the order of the LMM, which I welcome. Will he now use the reserve to order more air defence missiles for our ships and fighter planes?

If our Type 45s are to intercept the most sophisticated ballistic missiles, they need the Sea Viper system upgraded to Sea Viper Evolution, which I have repeatedly asked Ministers to accelerate, as it is currently scheduled to enter service in 2032. When I was a Defence Minister, HMS Diamond, which was under attack by the Houthis in the Red sea, was using expensive missiles to intercept cheap drones, so I scrapped a load of red tape to accelerate the in-service date of our DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to next year. Will the Secretary of State take similar steps to accelerate Sea Viper?

There is, of course, a problem. In a written answer about Sea Viper Evolution that I received in January, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry responded:

“Continued progress…remains subject to”—

guess what?—

“the Defence Investment Plan.”

In Defence oral questions on 15 December, there were just four sitting days left before the rise of the House, and the Secretary of State could not tell us whether the Government would publish the DIP before recess. Given that there are once again just four sitting days left before recess and that he must know his diary for the week ahead, can he tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published before the rise of the House on Thursday, and if not, will he publish it during purdah? Above all, if the DIP is not going to be published this week, will he—to break the logjam with the Treasury—urge the Chancellor to take the difficult decisions required to set a course for spending 3% on defence in this Parliament, not the next?

Finally, surely even the Secretary of State can see that hypothetical legal action under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea by a country without a navy or a standing army is less of a threat to our base on Diego Garcia than long-range missiles fired by Iran. Is not the best way that he could stand up for our sovereign territory of Diego Garcia be scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos deal and spending every penny on the British armed forces?

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s initial comments about the loss of French and US personnel, and I recognise and respect those. He asked me, first, about the comments from President Trump today. I am sure the whole House will welcome President Trump’s statement today, with its recognition that there is progress in conversations about the

“COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST”,

and his instruction to hold off further strikes against Iranian power plants. That creates the opportunity and opening for further de-escalation, and the onus is now on Iran to respond.

The shadow Secretary of State went on to the strikes that I have reported on, or the missiles fired in the direction of, Diego Garcia. I just say to him that we have been blunt and open about the threat Iran poses—the threat it poses to British nationals, British bases and British interests and partners—and to suggest otherwise is completely false. That is why we have been conducting the defensive operations throughout the region since day one of this war. Those missiles were fired towards Diego Garcia early on Friday morning, the same day I offered the shadow Defence Secretary the chance to come into the MOD for a secure briefing. I welcome his thanks for that, but he, as a former Defence Minister, will know that no Government routinely comment on the detail of such threats, due to the nature of intelligence sharing. He will also know that no Government immediately confirm such events, partly because in any conflict events are fast-moving, but mainly because to do so may put at risk the safety of military personnel or compromise ongoing operations. I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he should bear that in mind for the future.

I want to reassure the public, however, on the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises about long-range Iranian missiles and any question of Iran targeting the UK, and to say, quite clearly, that there is no assessment that we are being targeted in the UK in that way. We have the resources and the alliances in place to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attack. We operate a layered defence of this United Kingdom. Our Navy, our RAF and our Army are all involved, and we operate our defence with other NATO allies. That layered defence against missiles or any other sort of threat is an important part of keeping this country safe.

It seems to have taken a war in the middle east for the hon. Gentleman to realise that air and missile defence systems for the UK are important. [Interruption.] No, because in the last year of his Government, they slashed defence spending on ground-based air defence by 70%. When he was Defence Minister, he promised a munitions strategy, which he never published and was never funded. It was down to this Government, last June, as part of the strategic defence review, to announce an extra £1 billion for air and missile defence above the Tory plans that he left. It is the UK, under this Government, that has been leading NATO’s DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—air and missile defence initiative. It is this Government who in this year alone have boosted spending on counter-drone systems fivefold from his last year in government, and spending on ground-based air defence systems by 50%. It is this Government who are delivering for defence after 14 years of underfunding and hollowing out under the previous Government.

I have to say that I am still very confused about the Conservatives’ position on the war in Iran. One week, the Leader of the Opposition said that UK jets must “go to the source” in Iran and that “we are in this war” whether we like it or not. Then the next week, she said:

“I never said we should join”.

The week after that, the shadow Defence Secretary said on Sky News that there are no easy answers to this.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman talks about defence investment planning and spending. We are working to finalise the DIP, but he was, of course, the Defence Minister who left 47 out of 49 major defence programmes not on budget, not on time. He was the one who left a defence programme that was over-committed, underfunded and deeply unsuited to the threats we now face. It is this Government, a Labour Government, who are now delivering for defence: 1,200 major contracts signed since July 2024, 84% of them awarded to British businesses, and the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.

I call the Mother of the House.

The Iranian regime is a threat to us all, not least to its own population. I implore Ministers to remember the importance of a debate in Parliament, just as we had on Iraq, if we move further in our involvement with Trump’s war.

The Mother of the House speaks with long and deep experience of these matters. I would just say to her that the Prime Minister himself has said that while we are taking

“the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war.”

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The country’s best interests are served by our actions both before and since the start of this period of the war—actions taken to defend our personnel, our bases, our allies and our interests throughout the region. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that our interests are served best by an end to the conflict, which we want to see happen now. We therefore welcome President Trump’s move to step back from further attacks on Iranian power plants and oil infrastructure, which creates the opportunity for further de-escalation, which the hon. Gentleman calls for. I hope that he would recognise that the onus is now on Iran to respond in kind.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, there has been no change in the principles on which our approach, action and decisions are based. These are permissions for the US to use UK bases for defensive action, as it is striking at the very Iranian sites and capabilities that are attacking our interests and those of our partners in the region.

The Secretary of State is right to draw to attention to the fact that when he became Secretary of State, our armed forces were underfunded and very stretched. He and his team and the Government have done much to improve that, including bringing about additional funding for the armed forces. However, I am concerned that this further commitment, because of what is happening in Iran, will put a lot of strain on our already overstretched armed forces, and I am concerned about the sustainability of our continuing investment there. What discussions are taking place in Government to accelerate expenditure to at least 3% in this Parliament and as quickly as possible?

Having been a Defence Minister and having served for some time on the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend is more knowledgeable than perhaps anyone else in the House about defence matters. I appreciate his recognition of the way that, since the election, we have stepped up the scale of investment in autonomous systems, counter-drone systems and integrated missile and air defence systems, all of which were badly lacking under the previous Government. He will have followed an important speech that the Prime Minister gave three or four weeks ago at Munich, in which he recognised, as this House does, that demands on defence are rising; that this is an era of hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy; and that we need to spend more, faster, on defence.

May I remind Defence Ministers yet again that they should be comparing increases in defence expenditure not with the post-cold war years, but with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war years, which was between 4.5% and 5% of GDP? Can the Secretary of State look the House straight in the eye, as it were, and say that, given the very close relationship between China and the Mauritians, which includes a 25-year treaty of co-operation, it would be a sounder situation if Mauritius had sovereignty over Diego Garcia and we were only lessees to them?

I respect the right hon. Gentleman, and the straight answer to his question is yes, I can. The deal that we have in place, which is awaiting ratification, would give us operational sovereignty over Diego Garcia for at least 99 years. This base is central and essential to our and the US’ security and military around the world. The deal now on the table, which we have negotiated with the Mauritians, gives us greater protections in the waters around the island and a greater veto over developments on the other islands. It is so much better than the deal the previous Government left when they left office, reached after 11 rounds of negotiation.

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to members of the armed forces, and I acknowledge too the difficult path that he has to tread. The Government’s stated objective was to achieve de-escalation of this war led by diplomacy, yet the truth is that the US planes leaving British soil, which he authorised without parliamentary consent, are carrying not diplomats but heavy payloads. The Secretary of State said that he wants these actions to be legal. What protocols has he agreed with the United States to ensure that those bombers are operating within national and international law and in a defensive capacity only? Anything else leads to a slippery slope from defence into offence.

The permissions that we have granted in response to specific US requests are for operations restricted to defensive legal purposes that strike at the capabilities that are doing most to hold at risk and attack our interests, allies and personnel. It is part of an established system of requesting such basing operations, with a system that ensures that the US respects the permissions that it has requested. That system allows us to ensure that that is, and continues to be, the case.

On de-escalation, I hope that my hon. Friend recognises and was encouraged by the leadership that the Prime Minister and the UK played at the end of last week, when we led the work that has produced a statement now signed by 29 other countries calling for the co-ordinated development of options and the condemnation of Iran’s attacks and closure of the strait of Hormuz. It also recognises the enormous impact that this is having across the world, including for people and businesses in this country, about which so many are so concerned.

There is a glaring contradiction between the Defence Secretary’s statement, which refers to

“taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence,”

and announcing to the House that we will have another recess without the defence investment plan. Does he recognise that last year the Defence Committee, which has a majority of Labour Members on it, said that

“demand signals will not exist until the Defence Investment Plan is published”?

At a time when so many of our allies have invested in defence, does he not recognise that delaying the plan is likely to stoke inflation, undermining the spend as and when it comes?

We are working flat out to finalise the plan, but it has not held up important decisions that we have made. Since the election, we have been able to let over 1,200 major contracts, the majority of which are with British businesses and British firms, creating British jobs, reinforcing the innovation base in this country and demonstrating that defence under this Government is becoming an engine for growth.

The availability of Type 45s is a direct result of the severe defence cuts enacted by the Conservatives in 2010, so I am incredulous that they comment on their availability without giving an apology. However, while we recognise that perhaps there is not an Iranian missile capable of travelling the 2,000 km to the Chagos islands, will my right hon. Friend recognise that, were there to be one, that would show a worrying proliferation of technology from North Korea and Russia, and that shows we must continue to support Ukraine in its war against Russia?

I do indeed. My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of his service experience and his service on the Defence Committee. He reminds the House, as I did at the end of my statement, that with all eyes on the middle east, we cannot lift our focus and deflect our priority from stepping up support for Ukraine, and, as the strategic Defence review encourages us to do, learning the lessons from Ukraine. He is right to remind the Conservative party that during its 14 years in office it cut the number of frigates and destroyers by a quarter, and the number of minehunters by more than a half, and in its first five years the defence budget was cut by fully £12 billion.

The Secretary of State talked a lot in his statement about British hardware, but coercing an adversary also requires us to understand their war aims and their beliefs. In Iraq, we learned late about the need to develop cultural awareness. Martyrdom is central to Shi’a Islam and viewed as redemptive suffering. Alongside all the kit that the Secretary of State talked about, will the Government also invest in cultural capability?

I am a somewhat simple man, and I am not clear what cultural capability really means. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with his proposition, I would be happy to have a look at it.

One of the clearest lessons of the Chilcot inquiry was that the UK must be prepared to say no to the US when British interests, legal standards and global stability are at risk. Will the Government hold firm and not be drawn further into this conflict by a so-called ally whose conduct is unpredictable, insulting, destabilising and, in my view, deranged?

Let me say again that while we are taking the necessary action to defend our interests and our allies, as the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and in public, we will not get drawn into the wider war.

The Secretary of State is right that we all breathed a sigh of relief this morning at the American President stepping back from the abyss of an attack on Iran’s power network. However, it remains the case that just a few days ago a projectile fell within 350 metres of Iran’s only nuclear power station. The Secretary of State spoke compellingly about the courage of British personnel in defending our assets in the region and those of our allies. If it were to come to our attention that, in an era of irrational decision making, an attack against that nuclear power station was contemplated, with the catastrophic effect that would have on the region, what steps would we take to prevent that attack?

The right hon. Gentleman is an old hand in this House. He has also, I think, served in a number of security posts in government. He would be the last person to expect me to speculate on future hypothetical scenarios like that, but the points he made at the start of his question are really important. The opportunity now, based on the President’s declaration this morning and his instruction to his Department of War to hold off further attacks on Iranian power plants and infrastructure for the next five days, gives diplomacy the opportunity, gives further de-escalation the opening and places the onus on this country, I hope across all parts of this House, to urge Iran to seize this opportunity and see an early end to the conflict.

I thank my right hon. Friend for this detailed update. Further to his earlier comments, it is really important that our constituents understand how serious this is. Energy traders right now are like epidemiologists in February 2020. They are looking at energy sources and shortages, just as epidemiologists looked at covid and how it was spreading around the world, and working out how on earth to warn people of the horrors to come. The brutal reality is that if this war does not end, we could see energy shortages that will have a lasting economic effect on this country for decades. My right hon. Friend says that the President has agreed to a five-day suspension and agreed not to target the Iranian power plants. He will know how serious this is. How confident is he that the President will stick to that five-day pledge and give a chance for the urgent de-escalation that our economy and our world needs?

My hon. Friend makes the clearest and strongest possible case for an early end to this conflict and for how imperative it is to embrace this opportunity that President Trump has created. As she rightly says, the impending potential impact on the world economy, and on the lifestyle and costs of all families and businesses in this country, is severe. That is the reason the Prime Minister will be chairing a Cobra meeting this afternoon that will look at the potential economic impacts of the conflict. I will attend that meeting, and no doubt the House will be updated in due course.

I remind the House that RAF Fairford is in my constituency, so it is with grave concern that I note the news of two missiles being aimed at Diego Garcia. The Prime Minister previously pledged that we will not be drawn into the wider war, yet we have already shifted from the defensive to the offensive use of air bases on UK land. As almost 60% of the British public oppose the use of RAF bases in this war, will the Secretary of State commit to bringing back to this House the opportunity for open debate and full transparency on all the factors that are leading to this rapid descent down the slippery slope?

Statements such as this are exactly the opportunity for Members of the House to express their views and put their questions, but I say to the hon. Lady that she is simply wrong: there has been no shift on the permissions granted to the US for specific purposes, and those purposes are defensive. They are defensive because they are limited to the Iranian missiles and capabilities that are attacking our ships, our bases and our interests, and threatening our interests, our bases and our allies across the region. The basis of the permission simply has not changed, as was confirmed in the statement released by the Government after the meeting of Ministers on Friday.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Despite talk of a “complete and total” resolution of hostilities from across the Atlantic, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) that we cannot give false comfort to our constituents that there will not be lasting economic and military consequences. What detail can the Secretary of State give us, and when, on the leading role that he sees the UK playing in keeping the strait of Hormuz open?

As the statement that the UK helped co-ordinate and signed at the end of last week set out, and as I have said to the House today, we are ready to play a leading role in efforts, including all options that may be necessary, with allies to try to secure a resumption of commercial shipping and a freedom of passage through the strait of Hormuz. That is likely to require significant de-escalation, but we are preparing all options. As I confirmed to the House earlier on as well, I have put UK military planners into US Central Command, and their job is to help shape and prepare the potential co-ordination of such activity, which must include a range of allies and multinational support.

Further to the answer the Secretary of State has just given, he has confirmed to the House this afternoon that mines have been laid in the strait of Hormuz. Therefore, one of the biggest problems—whether there was a cessation of violence overnight—will be getting vessels insured. How quickly can the Secretary of State give the other side of that coin to the markets and the insurance companies that, even if de-escalation happened overnight, they can have faith that the strait of Hormuz will be demined? That will take a military operation led by Europe. The Americans will not get involved—we know that. How quickly can he say what the counterbalance is to the fact that he has confirmed this afternoon that the strait of Hormuz has indeed been mined?

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a timescale. What I can say to him is that we are bending all our efforts in defence and more widely to contribute to the development of all options, and those must involve allies and they have to be multinational. In the end, as he suggested to the House, the test will be the decisions of commercial shipowners, crews and insurers about the safety that they can have about resuming their commercial trade through the strait of Hormuz.

What Donald Trump said at the weekend was that unless the strait was opened, he would obliterate Iran’s power plants. I agree that attacking a nuclear plant could be extremely catastrophic. As we have made clear to Putin, however, attacking power plants that supply power to civilians is against international law and is clearly a move from defence to aggression. On that basis, while I join the Secretary of State in hoping that the next five days secure peace, may I ask him to confirm that UK bases will not be used to attack power plants? If there is to be such a change of policy, will he ask the Prime Minister for a debate and a vote in this House, because I want my constituents to know that I am not willing to support such escalation?

The permissions for the use of UK bases by the US are defensive. They do not include the striking of Iranian power plants, which is the clarification that my right hon. Friend asks of me. As I and the Prime Minister have said, those principles of defensive actions and decisions with a sound legal basis, and actions in co-ordination with allies to ensure a collective self-defence in the region, will continue to inform the decisions and choices that this Government make.

One thing that unites the Prime Minister of Israel and the supreme leader of Iran is that neither could care less about what the UK Prime Minister says, and it is difficult to imagine that the US President is not in a similar camp. With fiscal headroom evaporating, business confidence vanishing and household budgets being shredded by this war, what can the Secretary of State offer, over and above the vacuous calls for de-escalation, to ensure that people on these islands are protected from the ferocious effects of this war on the supply of energy?

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman degrades the contribution that the UK is making to the collective defence of allies in the region, and that he fails to recognise that the basing request from the US to which we have agreed is an important and valuable contribution to the US operations and to our interests.

The decisions that the Prime Minister makes are in our national interests. He has said that we will do what we can, with allies, to deal with the risk to worldwide energy supplies and prices. He has supported the release of extra oil on to the markets, he has had the Government put in help for those who use heating oil, and he will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as I have told the House, to consider exactly the things that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.

I put on record my thanks to the British armed forces, which are working round the clock to defend British interests and British people. My constituents have made it clear that they want no part in the wider war being waged by the US and Israel, but at the same time, they expect the robust defence of British interests and personnel. Although I welcome the fact that neither Iranian missile got anywhere close to Diego Garcia, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the UK will play its full part in the defence of Diego Garcia should another such missile attack take place?

We will, as we always have done, defend British personnel and British bases. I know that my hon. Friend and his Rochdale constituents will be proud of the fact that RAF pilots have now flown nearly 900 hours during this conflict for exactly those purposes, and that there are now more British jets in the region than there have been for 15 years.

Any assessment of this intervention must recognise that the Iranian regime has made the Iranian people pay with blood for every single act of defiance, so any attempt to apportion blame when a mass insurrection does not materialise would be unjust, and I hope that we will soon hear Ministers say so from the Dispatch Box. Last week, I raised concerns that the assessment of the intent and capability of Iran was clearly flawed, and this weekend’s activity has proved that to be true. What action has the Secretary of State taken to challenge thinking internally, and to support British overseas territories by taking action to reinforce their defences and by speaking to their elected Governments, not just governors?

I am not sure that I follow the hon. Lady; I certainly do not accept what I understand to be her point. When I was in Cyprus a couple of weeks ago, I met the Defence Minister, as well as the chief of the national guard, who made it clear to me that military co-operation with the UK is closer than it has ever been. As I have said, we are playing a leading role, with the Republic of Cyprus, in co-ordinating the increasing capabilities in the eastern Mediterranean, to help that sovereign base to remain as protected as possible in the circumstances and in the face of the Iranian threat.

Further to that point, I thank the Minister for Europe for going to Cyprus last week, and I am grateful for the conversations between the Prime Minister and the President of Cyprus. My constituency has long-standing people-to-people ties with Cyprus, so what assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that Government are considering not just British personnel but the wider Cypriot family?

I can indeed. I hope my hon. Friend, and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and their military, realise that the steps we took well before this war broke out to reinforce defences in Cyprus and across the region, have been there not just to protect British personnel and step up defences at our base, but they are defending and helping to protect the whole Republic of Cyprus and the island of Cyprus.

From the first moments that the attempted rocket launches towards Diego Garcia were reported over the weekend there has been growing speculation, fuelled mainly by Israel, that Iran’s strike capacity now stretches far beyond what we previously conceived, and far beyond the Gulf region. Given what the Secretary of State said today when he confirmed that they were Iranian rockets—that goes beyond the NATO Secretary General yesterday—can he confirm how close those rockets or missiles came to Diego Garcia? What is now the MOD’s assessment about the effective strike range of Iran’s missile capacity? Does it stretch deep into Europe, and is the UK even now at risk?

As I have said, the missiles that were fired in the direction of Diego Garcia fell well short. One came down, and one was brought down well short. The specific capabilities of adversaries like Iran, and what they hold, are certainly not details that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to disclose to the House or in public.

May I associate myself with the comments by the Secretary of State when he commends our brave servicemen and women? Far from “hanging around”, which the Leader of the Opposition thinks they are doing, they are working night and day to protect us at home and abroad, and as one of many Members across the House who have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I add my thanks to them. Precisely because the first priority of any Government is to protect British citizens, can the Secretary of State assure the House that those facing Iranian aggression, and who are closer to it than any of us will be, have everything they need to defend our people, our bases, and our allies?

I can indeed. As I reported to the House, we have the highest levels of force protection in place, and they are reviewed daily by the Chief of Joint Operations, who reports to me each week. My hon. Friend is completely right. I was in Cyprus a couple of weeks ago, talking to the pilots and crews that allow our F-35s and Typhoons to fly those defensive missions, as they have done from day one of this conflict, and they were frankly insulted that the Leader of the Opposition had accused them of “just hanging around”—[Interruption.] There has never been an apology from the Opposition for those remarks, but Labour Members know that those pilots and crews are working flat out and doing an important job to defend our personnel, our bases, and our allies.

Order. I need to squeeze in many people, so questions need to be short, and answers just as short.

We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?

The right hon. Gentleman makes his case. He knows, as I do, that our British services have foiled around 20 sabotage or assassination plots with the Iranian hand behind them on British soil. He makes the case for proscription. That is a decision in other parts of the Government, but it something we keep under review, and a decision we will take with a broader view of the way that we are challenging, confronting, and working with allies to deal with the Iranian threat.

BBC News Ukraine recently published an outstanding report on the demand for drone interceptors, such as the British-made Octopus and the Wild Hornets Sting drone. Will the Government update the House on what work they are doing to bolster UK and Ukrainian drone interceptor production so that these devices can be in the skies to defend against Shahed drones, which are threatening the interests of Britain and Gulf partners alike?

I am proud to say that there are interceptors in the skies above Ukraine now that have the British hand and British production behind them, working closely with Ukraine. The Octopus interceptor that my hon. Friend talks about is a special link-up between Ukraine and the UK. We look forward to being able to produce them en masse and return them to Ukraine to help them defend their skies against Putin’s invasion.

Six days ago, the UK Government’s security group rightly launched a leak inquiry into the leaking of very sensitive information from the National Security Council. I do not expect the Defence Secretary to comment on an ongoing inquiry, but does he agree on these principles? First, the very least that our armed forces should expect when they are being sent into harm’s way is for the political leadership of this country to not leak secret and top-secret information. Secondly, whoever it is—a Cabinet Minister, a senior official or a junior official—when caught, they should be sacked.

I do not think anyone can doubt the determination of the Prime Minister to prevent such actions or to take the action required when such activities are going on. I can give the right hon. Gentleman my reassurance that that is the case.

I join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to our civilians and armed forces personnel who are defending the UK national interests. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them overseas during my time in the House. Those serving overseas have been putting themselves in harm’s way, and they will have families back at home who are understandably worried, especially given the situation with personnel from the US and France being killed. What support is the Secretary of State putting in place back at home for the families of those who are serving in the middle east?

I will certainly write to my hon. Friend with the detail, but the House can rest assured that this issue is foremost in our mind. We have a system in place that is doing exactly what my hon. Friend urges.

Against the backdrop of this illegal, counterproductive and reckless war, next month, Palestinians in the west bank and in parts of Gaza will take part in municipal elections, which include candidates who are committed to peaceful dialogue with Israel and who reject Iranian-backed terrorism. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the significance of those elections for building peace in the middle east, and will he and the Government do everything in their power to ensure the deployment of independent observers so that the elections are fair and safe?

We will.

US military aircraft departed from the Scottish Government-owned Prestwick airport up to 32 times in the 10 days before American and Israeli strikes started on Iran. Like many of my constituents, I am worried about the prospect of a Scottish airport being used in an illegal war. Will the Secretary of State definitively say today who has the authority to stop the US military using Scottish civilian infrastructure? Is it the Prime Minister or is it the First Minister of Scotland?

There is no use—there has been no use—of Prestwick airport for US bombing strikes.

I call John Cooper.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Excuse me; I have swallowed a fly.

Ready?

I think I just about am, yes. The situation we are talking about today is a shooting war, but of key interest to us is the tug of war going on between the MOD and the Treasury over the defence investment plan. We have some indication of what is going on—I think we have gathered that it will not come out this week. Can the Secretary of State give us some indication of whether the purdah period for the upcoming elections in Scotland in May will further impact the announcement of this critical plan?

I don’t know why he swallowed a fly, and I do not know why the hon. Gentleman imagines that there is a tug of war, especially when he can look at the Government’s record over the past 18 months in putting in place a record increase in defence spending, the degree of support that the Chancellor has given to recognising the rising demands on defence and the commitment that the Prime Minister has given that in this era of hard power—“the currency of the age”, as the Prime Minister calls it—we need to do more and spend faster.

The humanitarian implications of this war are already severe. In Lebanon, 1 million people have been forced to flee their homes, including Palestinian and Syrian refugees who had found safety in the south of Lebanon, but who are now being forced to flee for their lives again. Meanwhile, the airspace closures in the Gulf and the closure of the strait of Hormuz are affecting global humanitarian supply chains. For example, the International Rescue Committee has warned that $130,000 of pharmaceutical supplies for Sudan are now stuck in Dubai. What is the Secretary of State doing to support access to humanitarian relief during this crisis?

That issue is a part of the discussions, particularly those being undertaken by the Foreign Secretary and her team, that we are having with Gulf nations and with Lebanon, and the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Lebanese Prime Minister in recent days.

The expansion of US use of UK bases announced over the weekend represents an escalation of UK involvement in this war. At a time when we all agree that de-escalation is urgently needed, we are being dragged into Trump’s illegal, reckless war, with huge ramifications for the region and for households in this country. Last week, the Secretary of State said that he would get involved only if there was a “viable, collective plan”, but where is that plan? This afternoon, the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee that we must beware of

“the false comfort of thinking that there will necessarily be a quick and early end to this”

conflict. Given all that, when will we have a Commons vote on the escalating UK involvement in this illegal and reckless war?

I reject almost everything that the hon. Lady has said. We will not get drawn into a wider war. The decisions that we are taking are de-escalatory and defensive, not escalatory, and we will work in whatever way we can to bring an early end to this conflict.

The long-range missile attacks have raised the spectre in my mind, and surely in those of others, of attacks on the United Kingdom. I have listened to the Secretary of State’s reassurances about the defence of this country, but we have all seen the value of the Iron Dome. What is being done to create such a system for the defence of this country?

An extra £1 billion is being put now into integrated air and missile defence for Britain. That was not part of the previous Government’s plans and it stems directly from the assessment that the strategic defence review set out when we published it last year.

Given that it takes about a month to move a minor war vessel from Portsmouth to the Gulf, and notwithstanding the meetings that the Secretary of State says that he is having with allies about ensuring freedom of navigation through the strait, would it be a good idea to start shifting those minehunters now, so that when he has the results of his discussions, which I hope will be a bit more than just handwringing, we will be in a position to genuinely do something in an area that we are actually really rather good at?

The House will have heard me say that we already have autonomous minehunting capabilities in the region and we are looking to reinforce them. I guess the right hon. Gentleman now regrets being part of a Government that in 2021 accelerated the out-of-commission dates of some of the minehunters.

Under international law, the use of force is permitted for “individual or collective self-defence” against “an armed attack”. Such use of force must satisfy the requirements of proportionality and necessity. In light of the broadening use of British military bases at the request of Donald Trump over the past week, will the Defence Secretary clarify for the British public how this satisfies those requirements? If the lessons of Iraq are to be learned, surely he must understand that the British public will not accept anything other than a parliamentary debate and vote on any further British military involvement.

I reassure my hon. Friend, as she invites me to, that the permissions that we have given are for operations that are defensive, in the sense that they are directed only at Iranian missile capabilities that are being used to attack British interests, British allies and British shipping, including red-ensign-flagged vessels in the strait of Hormuz.

Much old ground has been gone over by the Secretary of State, but our service personnel live in the here and now. The defence investment plan is absolutely vital for their future, whether we are talking about operations in the field, or upgrading housing for their families—a subject that we are discussing in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. Given that he did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), may I ask if “working flat out” means that the DIP will be published in days, weeks or months?

“Working flat out” means working flat out, and we are working flat out to finalise the defence investment plan.

May I commend our current position of not being drawn further into the US and Israeli operation in Iran? Can the Secretary of State confirm that we will continue to avoid any escalation, and will act only in ways that are in defence of British personnel and interests?

I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right: our purpose is the defence of British personnel, our bases, our interests and our allies in the region. We will continue to make decisions and take action based on principles that are defensive and legal, and in co-ordination with our allies.

On top of the direct attacks by Iran, its principal proxy in the region, Hezbollah, continues to defy the Lebanese Government by using Lebanon as a base from which to fire rockets into Israeli civilian populations. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking, in conjunction with the Lebanese Government, to help them dismantle this absolute cancer in Lebanon? More importantly, what steps are being taken to ensure that infrastructure built in Lebanon in recent years using British taxpayers’ money is categorically not being used for any of those attacks?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to Lebanon. Like him, I am gravely concerned about the conflict and the situation there. Like him, I strongly condemn the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, and they must stop, but the forced displacement of 1 million people due to Israel’s operations is unacceptable. There must be diplomatic action to prevent this conflict from widening. For that purpose, the Foreign Secretary has spoken recently to the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Lebanese Prime Minister.

I know that the people of Harlow will want me to echo the Secretary of State’s comments about our brave personnel and the work that they do to keep us safe every single day. Listening to his statement, it struck me that it is hugely important that our bases here and abroad are safe. Can he outline what he is doing to ensure that the security of our bases is paramount, and that any organisation that seeks to break into our bases faces the full strength of the law?

I can indeed. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern. We are investing in more counter-drone technology and more closed circuit television, and we are tightening up the base security arrangements. My hon. Friend the Armed Forces Minister has taken personal charge of this operation.

Donald Trump may have paused his escalation of aggressive attacks, but we know that the conflict is not over. The Secretary of State said that US access to British bases is restrained by the principle that such use is defensive only. The public have the right to know what safeguards exist. What follow-up checks are made to verify that this use is indeed defensive only?

The safeguard is the established system of granting access, basing and overflight. That established system builds in throughout—not just afterwards—the reassurance, checks and controls required to ensure that when the US takes advantage of the permissions that we have given, it does so within those permissions.

I pay tribute to all the personnel at RAF Wyton, who are doing incredible round-the-clock work to analyse exactly what is going on in this conflict in the middle east.

The Secretary of State talks about missile defence for the UK. I appreciate that he has had his Weetabix this morning, but can I gently remind him that he was a Minister in the last Labour Government, who halved the number of Type 45 destroyers, meaning that we do not have enough? They also equipped them with WR-21 engines, and as a result, we have only one that is currently seaworthy, HMS Dragon. The Security Minister, who is also sitting on the Front Bench, told me last week that the Government were informed in advance of the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Could the Secretary of State confirm how far in advance the Government were informed of those attacks? Was it hours, days, or weeks?

I am not prepared to disclose that sort of data, but the hon. Gentleman should judge us by our actions, and well ahead of this war breaking out, we reinforced Britain’s defences in the region. Turning to HMS Dragon, we only have it available to deploy to the eastern Mediterranean because it was ordered by a Labour Government, and over 14 years, Conservative Governments did not order a single new destroyer.

While the Government have set out their military approach in some detail, there remains far less clarity on the diplomatic strategy that must eventually bring this conflict to an end. Can the Secretary of State set out what the UK is doing to get all sides back to the negotiating table? As we do so, how will the Government ensure that we do not simply follow President Trump down a path that risks replacing one brutal regime with another, rather than securing democracy and freedom for the Iranian people?

First and foremost, we are ensuring that we can protect British interests in the region. We are looking to protect our allies in the region, and everything we do is in co-ordination with our partners in the region. I hope the hon. Lady takes some encouragement from the announcement that we helped to co-ordinate and publish at the end of last week about the importance of opening the strait of Hormuz, which has now been signed by 29 other nations.

Does the Secretary of State have contacts at US Central Command that can give reassurance that there is a plan? The President’s social media feed gives the opposite impression. Is Britain at war?

Yes to the first question; no to the second.

The Government may not want to be drawn into a war with Iran, but Iran has declared war on us by attacking our bases, trying to kill our civilians, attacking our economy, and even engaging in acts of terror in our country. We have found this weekend that we rely on the US to protect our bases, and require its defensive capability to do so. Does that not lead the Secretary of State to the conclusion that, rather than begrudgingly providing limited access to our bases, we should be giving full support to the Americans and the Israeli Government in destroying this regime, to stop it fomenting war in the middle east and blackmailing us economically?

We have agreed to the requests that the US has put to us. As I have said, one of our major principles is that we are working in close co-ordination with allies on defensive operations, including and especially with the US.

I welcome President Trump’s statement that he is apparently now in talks with Iran. Sadly and predictably, Iran seems to have achieved escalation dominance by closing the strait of Hormuz, so what plans is the UK making for a post-conflict region in which Iran retains the upper hand because it can dictate global energy prices and continue to threaten Gulf nations?

We will work in exactly the way that the joint statement that we helped to co-ordinate at the end of last week sets out, so as to de-escalate the conflict, co-ordinate with allies, and look for a point at which we can see the strait of Hormuz reopen.

Every credible legal analyst will state that this attack on Iran by Israel and the US was illegal. There was never an imminent threat, and the Caroline principles incorporated into the UN charter were simply not engaged. Given that Trump now seeks to withdraw from this war, and given the disquiet in this House about whether our base use is offensive or defensive in nature, will the Defence Secretary allow a parliamentary debate in which Members can vote on whether we should allow our bases to be used? If not, why not?

The decisions we have taken as a Government have been taken for defensive purposes, and in co-ordination with allies. This House has plenty of opportunities, including for almost an hour and a half today, to put questions and debate these matters. It is important that we do that, and important that we continue to take the steps necessary to protect our people in the middle east.

Why, alone among our European allies, is the UK facilitating Trump’s illegal war by allowing the United States to use RAF bases to launch attacks? The Government admitted last week that they could not guarantee that such attacks were not made against civilian infrastructure in Iran. In the light of the Government’s complicity, have they uprated the risk assessment of the threats faced by the population of these islands? Finally, just what is it about illegal wars in the middle east that the Labour party seems unable to resist?

The hon. Gentleman is almost last, but not least. I reject almost every assertion he makes in his tripartite question. The decisions we have taken and the permissions we have given have a sound legal basis. They are for defensive purposes, and are directed at Iranian sites that are attacking our interests and our allies, and that hold a threat, including to British ships and red-ensign-flagged vessels in the strait of Hormuz.

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.

While we welcome the progress of talks in the middle east, the fact that our Government have to learn updates from the news cycle is beyond disappointing. The deterioration of the relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister is particularly worrying. Will the Secretary of State begin to rebuild that relationship with our American allies, and show willingness to work in the best interests of this nation? The attacks on Diego Garcia prove that this nation is under attack, and that deserves decisive action. How will the Minister secure the right action to put us back in step with our American friends, regardless of any personality clashes?

We will always work closely with the US. This is a deep military and security relationship that has seen the ups and downs of politics over many decades, and that will continue to be the case. The Prime Minister spoke with the President last night.