Iran

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

It is a day of sad farewells, and I will add to them by saying a very sad farewell from all of us across the House to Margaret and Godfrey in the Tea Room, who are leaving soon. I did not expect to be so emotional, but here we are.

I want to say something very clear and simple about what the Iran war means for us. It shows us that our affordability and security crises are intertwined, and that they lean on each other. More than that, it shows us that while we deal with those crises through policy, we also need a political vision that can unite us as we face the most important and dangerous Parliament in almost a century.

Since the Iran war started, we have seen oil and gas prices rise significantly. Oil prices are up by around 30%, and gas prices are up by 70%. The longer the strait remains closed, the worse that will get. What does that mean for us at home? It means higher prices and less affordable lives, but more than all that, it means more anger and fury on our streets. As people become unable to afford decent lives, they get angry at the system and angrier at us in this place. If we do not make their lives affordable, we cannot expect them to have a stake in, or defend, our nation. Only by ensuring that every single person has a reason to believe in this country and this place, and only by making lives affordable, can we ensure that we defend ourselves at home. We cannot ask people to risk or give up their life for a country that does not guarantee a decent life to them or their children.

As for our security crisis, we see that the far more unstable and dangerous world that we face is one in which the economy and affordability get worse. We are dependent on fossil fuels sold by dictators, including those in the most dangerous parts of the world, and that lack of security in energy abroad hits us here at home. The world is changing before our eyes. America’s eyes are no longer focused on Europe as much as they used to be; they are turning to Asia and the middle east.

It is clear to us in European NATO, and it should be clear to us in this House, that we must take more steps to defend ourselves. We as individuals all have a responsibility to state very clearly that we must defend this nation. The only way we prevent war is by preparing for one. It is the only way that we keep this country and our constituents safe for this generation and generations to come.

Finally, we see a nation that is far more divided and angry than ever before, partly because people cannot afford a decent life, but also because when they turn on their screens, they see war in the middle east, wildfires across the globe and a world that is far less secure and stable. They do not believe in us because they do not see a way for us to provide a decent future for them. That is on us to fix.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

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?

[Dr Sandher]

Short answer: yes. Longer answer: I think everyone across this House would give that condemnation as well. The latest conflagration, by our understanding, is that Iran struck a tanker, and that led to the end of the ceasefire. That is making us far poorer at home, but it is also making the region less secure and stable.

I say this to every Member in the House: although we disagree strongly and deeply, a lot unites us at this moment. Members from across the House were able to unite to face challenges a century ago, and I hope that we can do exactly the same, as we should, now and in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

Yes, of course. All our proposals are fully costed, and if the hon. Gentleman would like me to do so, I can send him more information on how we would pay for them. Every time that instability somewhere else sends a shockwave through our economy, it is a reminder of why weaning ourselves off volatile fossil fuel markets is squarely in Britain’s interests.

I would also like to raise the situation facing British citizens held in Iran. Lindsay and Craig Foreman have now been in Evin prison for over a year, and today there are reports that Craig’s sentence has been extended by a further two years. There are reports of hunger strikes and conditions that remain harrowing. No British national should be used as a bargaining chip in a geopolitical stand-off. Their continued detention is not acceptable, and the Government need to treat their release as an urgent diplomatic priority, working with international partners to get them home.

[Gregory Stafford]

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?

[James MacCleary]

It is a good challenge. Obviously, what I am talking about is a long-term solution. The military option has been tried. The United States, the pre-eminent military power on Earth, has expended a huge number of missiles and other military assets to try to bring Iran to a position that it wants it to be in. This has clearly not worked: Iran is still attacking shipping in the strait, and we are still seeing instability in the area. It is clear that the military option has not succeeded, and if the Americans cannot do it, frankly probably nobody can. We need to go back to the negotiating table to try to find a diplomatic solution, which I accept has so far been out of reach, but if we want a stable solution in the long term, it will come through diplomacy, not military means.

I welcome the recent decision by the Government to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under the National Security Act 2023, but a designation on paper matters only if it is backed by enforcement. This House will expect the Government to act firmly against anyone on UK soil intimidating dissidents, running cyber-attacks on British institutions or acting at the bidding of a hostile state.

Finally, a word on Britain’s role: the Government have said that UK bases have been used by the US only for narrowly defined defensive purposes. That distinction is worth holding on to, and this House deserves ongoing clarity about exactly when and how British territory might be used if things escalate further. Our alliances matter, but they do not relieve the Government of a duty to make their own judgment calls on how sovereign UK territory is used.

The priority now has to be stopping any slide into a wider war in the region, starting with the rebuilding of diplomatic channels, keeping shipping lanes protected and holding the line on international law, while backing our allies without handing over our own judgment calls. Above all, it means remembering that every step further into escalation has real costs for civilians in the middle east and families here at home. It is a reminder of the limits of armed force and of the fact that one of this country’s greatest strengths is our soft power—diplomatic, financial, cultural. Britain has influence that it can use to cool this situation down, rebuild some diplomatic momentum and help get the region and the wider world to the stability that everyone so desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point about how important it is for hon. Members to have lived experience when they come to this House, especially given that the Leader of the House said that Opposition day debates had to be cancelled to discuss this issue because it is the biggest crisis we face. The new Minister has only been in the Department for a couple of weeks, so he may not be as up to speed as the Defence Secretary—oh no, he is new as well—or perhaps the Foreign Secretary. Given the severity of what is facing the UK and the world, I thought the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) would be here. I even asked the Leader of the House if he would write to the right hon. Member for Makerfield to ask him to come to the debate, but alas, that seems to have gone amiss, but I am glad that we are having this important debate on Iran.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend has danced around the topic, but should we not place it on the record that we are now entirely clear why the Opposition business was cancelled yesterday and we are having a debate in which only two Labour Back Benchers are speaking—

[Chris Vince]

Three!

[Gregory Stafford]

Okay, three Labour Back Benchers. It is because the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and the Government decided that they did not want scrutiny of the new Prime Minister. It should be placed on the record that that is an absolute disgrace.

[Dr Evans]

Au contraire—how could my hon. Friend possibly make that suggestion? The public will see what this looks like. Did Labour Back Benchers not listen to the words of the Leader of the House about how important this debate is? Clearly, other hon. Members are too busy dealing with something even more important.

As I was saying, I am actually very pleased to be debating Iran, because the situation there has an impact on all aspects of our lives. The real question is not why we are debating the situation in Iran, but what decisions will be made by the man who will take charge in four or five days’ time. The Government are effectively asking us to debate a storm without understanding how the captain wants to steer us through it. That is why this debate matters.

Let’s start with energy. We have heard from both sides of the House about the impact that the situation in Iran will have on energy. Will the new Prime Minister think about opening new licences? What is he going to do about the cost of living and fuel prices? We do not know the answer, but that is going to have a big impact. We know that the cost of energy is going up in this country, despite the Government’s promises at the election that it would fall, and we do not have an answer on what the right hon. Member for Makerfield will do. We are not 100% sure what he will do on net zero. We have just had an urgent question on resilience and possible blackouts in this country, but we do not understand what he will do. I am quite keen to understand the thoughts of the person who will be in charge in five days’ time on how to deal with that issue and grow resilience in the country.

We have rightly heard from Members on the Government Benches about defence. There has been a lot of turmoil in defence under the Labour Government. We have lost a Defence Secretary. We have had a defence investment plan and, as I rightly pointed out earlier, it was expected to need £28 billion, but it has hit £15 billion. That is the funding that has been committed, but there is a gap there, isn’t there? We are £4.7 billion short. The right hon. Member for Makerfield will have to fill that gap in the handover, so how is he going to do it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) took an intervention right at the end of his speech, which threw me.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)? As I have mentioned in this place before, he is very much a friend of Harlow. I welcome him to his place and thank him for opening this debate. I join him and others from across the House in paying tribute to our incredible armed forces personnel.

I have said it a number of times in this House, but I am the son and grandson of armed forces personnel, and I know the huge sacrifice that they and their families make to keep us safe. My hon. and gallant Friend has done that on more than his fair share of occasions, and I thank him for that. I think Members across the House recognise the huge importance of debating these issues and the very concerning times that we live in—that is probably putting it mildly—and I cannot think of anybody else I would want to see debating them at the Dispatch Box, other than maybe my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who is sitting next to him.

I take the points made by Opposition Members, and it is really important to absolutely condemn the Iranian regime. Let us not forget the way in which the regime has treated the people of Iran. It cannot be right that people in Iran are not able to express their religious beliefs and are not allowed to be the people they want to be. That is hugely important, and we should always frame any debate about Iran in those terms.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman has very clearly put on the record his own condemnation of Iran. I join him in his comments about the way that Tehran treats its own people, but Iran’s malign influence on civilian populations goes way beyond its own people. It funds terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, causing devastation and destruction to civilian populations across the region and beyond. Will he also condemn Iran for that?

[Chris Vince]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I absolutely do, and I will add to that too. I wanted somehow to shoehorn in my support for the BBC World Service and ask Members to bear with me as I am going to do that, because it is also important that we recognise the malign influence of the Iran regime in this country. It was touched on earlier by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) in terms of the use of bad state actors and malign influences in social media. The BBC World Service is a really important tool in our armoury to tackle that disinformation. Going slightly off on a tangent, when the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring have been withdrawn from certain countries, Russian media sources have taken that space. It is important that we absolutely condemn the behaviour of the Iranian regime and its proxies, but also that we recognise the malign influence of the Iranian regime in this country, and we need to be prepared to tackle that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

I too congratulate the Minister on his appointment and welcome him to his place.

Call me naive, perhaps, but I honestly believe that there is nobody in this Chamber who, for all the absenteeism and manifest faults, is a supporter of, or an apologist for, the regime in Tehran. It is a regime that has for decades sought to export its version of Islamic revolution across the world by organising and financing armed groups and militias while simultaneously being absolutely brutal in crushing any form of dissent within its own borders.

It was always the hope that one day the people of Iran, weary of the internal repression and worn down by the collapsing economy, would turn against the regime, overthrow those leaders and begin a new chapter in the history of that wonderful country. There have been moments in recent years when we thought, indeed fervently hoped, that that could happen. Many of us here will remember the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, which swept across Iran in late 2022, when those incredibly brave Iranian women took to the streets in their tens of thousands to protest against the murder of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who died in police custody having been arrested for not wearing her hijab properly in public.

Those brave women and girls were soon joined by students, by workers, by members of ethnic and religious minority communities, who had had enough of the subjugation of women, the repression of minorities, the religious fundamentalism, the police brutality and the endemic Government corruption. And so, to the cry of “Woman, life, freedom,” and in an act of incredible bravery and in deliberate defiance of the regime, they removed their headscarves. Of course they knew that in so doing that bravery would come at huge personal cost to so many of them as individuals and to their families. As Professor Azadeh Kian, director of the centre for gender and feminist studies at the University of Paris, said at the time:

“What these women are doing in Iran is a revolution, at least a cultural revolution.”

But it was a revolutionary act which could not be tolerated by the regime, and it was one which the regime punished the only way it knew how: with extreme violence.

In the immediate aftermath of those protests, hundreds of protesters were killed and thousands more were arrested. In the short term, the streets were cleared; but no matter the wishes of the regime in Tehran, no amount of brutal repression would crush the dreams of millions of predominantly young Iranians. It was only a matter of time before they would take to the streets again, and they did so at the end of last year, on 28 December, in the biggest display of civil unrest since the ’79 revolution.

Millions of Iranians took to the streets. They took to the streets amid a collapsing currency, soaring inflation, a deterioration in living standards and so much more. It spread quickly to over 200 cities. In the inevitable crackdown that followed, thousands of protesters were killed and the IRGC, using live ammunition, turned on unarmed protesters on 8 and 9 January. In the days that followed, tens of thousands were arrested and there were verified reports of mass killings, putting the death toll at upwards of 30,000. The Iranian regime’s brutality is almost beyond comprehension, but it must have known that those popular uprisings would only become larger and more frequent. It must have known in late January or early February of this year that as its economy collapsed, with its continual brutalisation of women and girls, the imposition of strict religious laws and the suppression of minorities, the people of Iran had had enough, and that pressure was building.

As sure as day follows night, the regime’s grip on its population was loosening, but on 28 February, President Trump began his illegal war. One of Trump’s many and varied reasons for that massive aerial bombardment was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but this was the same President Trump who, following the 2025 bombardment, told us:

“Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran…Obliteration is an accurate term!”

His assessment was backed up by his Israeli allies, who announced that

“we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years.”

Yet in the face of what was happening inside Iran, the United States and Israel, between them, took the decision to attack. It was in that first wave of American attacks that 165 wee girls, aged between seven and 12, were killed when a US bomb hit their school while they were sitting in their classrooms. That same evening, Trump announced,

“to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand”.

I suspect that for many Iranians, particularly the parents of those dead children, freedom had never felt further away.

Five months on from that initial attack, the freedom that was promised to the people of Iran has turned out to be no more than the gimmicky soundbite we suspected it might be. Over the past five months, it has become clear that in this ill-conceived, illegal war of choice—although it remains unclear whether it was Trump’s choice or Netanyahu’s—there is no plan, no strategy and no sign of an off-ramp to bring the war to an end. All it seems to have achieved is to have all but destroyed Iran’s civilian economy, thereby harming the very people Trump said he was acting to liberate, while at the same time giving the regime in Tehran a huge strategic advantage, one that they are currently exploiting to great effect. One would have hoped and expected that in the White House, when they were scenario-planning this attack, someone would have asked the obvious question: “What will we do if the Iranians block the strait of Hormuz?” Unfortunately for the rest of the world, when someone is so desperate to deflect and hide from a scandal or a crisis at home, the bleeding obvious can sometimes become obscured.

In response to that attack, the very first thing Iran did was to cut off the strait of Hormuz—one of the most strategically important waterways in the world—leading to what the International Energy Agency has described as the

“largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market”.

Iran’s response sent fuel prices rocketing, and the cost of just about everything else that relies on oil—either for its manufacturing or its transportation—soaring. There is not a family anywhere in the United Kingdom who have not paid a direct price for Trump’s reckless behaviour. Even if this war were to end tomorrow, the economic shockwaves would continue for years to come. The European Central Bank recently warned that a prolonged conflict will likely trigger a period of stagflation and a period of low growth rates accompanied by inflation, and push major energy-dependent economies, including Germany and Italy, into technical recession by the end of 2026.

Since the initial attack back in February, Trump has told us time and again that in one form or another, Iran has been defeated, that it is begging for a peace deal, or that the strait of Hormuz is about to return to normal service. None of that has been true, and every ceasefire that has been brokered has collapsed within days. The dire economic consequences of Trump’s war of choice continue.

[Gregory Stafford]

There is little in the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that I disagree with, including what I could generously call the maladroitness of the American response. However, given the Tehran regime’s human rights violations and its utter disdain for not only its own citizens, but citizens across the world, what does he think is the correct response to a regime that is so brutal and so fundamentally outside the societal norms that he and I think are acceptable?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is a difficult question to answer, but I can tell the House what should not have been done, and what will never work. You do not free people from oppression through indiscriminate aerial bombardment. You do not free people by killing them, or by killing the children of the people you purport to be there to liberate. Of course there are ways in which any democratic country can support a freedom movement within a repressive regime, but what America has done with its Israeli allies is the antithesis of what should be done. All they have done is strengthen the regime, polarise the world, and irreparably damage the movement for freedom within Iran.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Before I start on the main topic of Iran, I put on record my condolences to the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe. The only time I met her was when I was a late teenager at the Oxford Union—like me, she was a former treasurer of the Oxford Union.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) mentioned the Oxford Union when he referenced the King and country debate. The other formative debate that the Oxford Union has every year is the no-confidence debate, which always happens in September or October, at the start of the academic year. In the past academic year, which we are now coming to the end of, the Oxford Union voted overwhelmingly to say that it did not have confidence in His Majesty’s Government. However, I am not naive enough to believe that Labour Members were following that debate carefully and that that is the reason they have ousted the current Prime Minister.

It is interesting, however, that the reason we are here debating Iran is not because Iran is a serious issue—although, of course, it is. It is because neither the outgoing Prime Minister nor the incoming Prime Minister, nor Labour Members want there to be scrutiny of the new Prime Minister. Labour was so frightened of whatever it was it thought its new Prime Minister was going to say at the Dispatch Box that it has given him cover for six weeks until he has time to think about it.

We know from his own campaign manager that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been plotting this coup for over a year. One would have thought that in that time he could have come up with a few answers, ideas or ways forward, but he will not speak to this House or to journalists, and presumably he does not even speak to Labour Back Benchers. Hopefully, in September he will come before this House and we can scrutinise him.

As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the problem is not whichever Prime Minister is leading the Labour party; it is fundamentally the Labour party itself. If this Labour party has allowed their incoming Prime Minister to evade scrutiny, all Labour Members should be ashamed.

[Tom Hayes]

My Jewish constituents will be watching this debate, so I put on record my support for the Government’s ban of supporters of the IRGC. I also welcome the fact that the Government have sanctioned that organisation and 500 Iranian-linked entities and individuals. The hon. Gentleman is an outspoken critic of the IRGC, so will he use this debate to repeat his criticism of it, and to support the Government’s moves?

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Member is entirely right, and I will come on to the IRGC in my speech. He is right to raise the concerns of his Jewish constituents. but I think all our constituents—of any faith or none—should fear the malign influence of the IRGC, and the way that it has brutalised its own population and works to the detriment of the UK and other European nations.

For centuries, Iran has been a nation of immense historical, cultural and civilisational importance. It has produced some of the world’s greatest contributions to literature, science, the arts and philosophy. Before the ’79 revolution, Iran was widely regarded as one of the most advanced and outward-looking states in the middle east. It was a country with a growing economy, expanding diplomatic ties with the west and a strategic role as a regional partner for us here in Britain, the United States and other democratic states. I do not say that to give right hon. and hon. Members a history lesson, but simply to highlight that it is not the Iranian people or Iran itself with which we have a problem, but the current fundamentalist regime in Tehran.

The picture I have painted of Iran before ’79 changed completely with the revolution. The previous system of government had essentially produced prosperity, but the Islamic Republic has a fundamentally different view and has, for four decades, pursued the destruction of its own country. The Iranian people have suffered from increasing restrictions on political freedoms, suppression of dissent, economic mismanagement and a state apparatus that has too often prioritised ideological ambition and external confrontation over the prosperity and liberty of its own citizens.

I was very disappointed in the speech from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who is no longer in his place, because he spent the whole time blaming Donald Trump. As I said in earlier interventions, I have no love for Donald Trump or the way in which he has dealt with the issues in the region, but not to stand and condemn Iran was shocking. I did a quick search, and while the hon. Member has mentioned Donald Trump in 18 speeches in this House, today was the first in which he has mentioned Iran. I think that is probably the wrong balance.

The current regime does not represent the aspirations of millions of ordinary Iranians, who have repeatedly risked their lives to demand greater freedoms, accountability and the right to determine their own future. Our quarrel is with the regime, which has systematically denied its citizens basic liberties, exported terrorism and instability across the middle east and further, threatened our allies and conducted hostile activity here in the United Kingdom. The courage of the Iranian people deserves all of our admiration.

Since the end of last year, protests have spread across all 31 provinces, driven by soaring inflation, economic hardship, corruption and decades of political repression. The response from the authorities in Tehran has once again demonstrated the methods on which this regime relies: intimidation, arbitrary detention, restrictions on communications and the use of force against those who simply demand a better future. Support for the Iranian people must therefore go hand in hand with a clear-eyed assessment of the wider threat posed by the Iranian regime.

For decades, Iran has sought to project power beyond its borders—not through normal diplomacy, as some in this Chamber seem to think, but through intimidation, terrorism and proxy warfare. It has armed, financed and directed militant organisations across the middle east in pursuit of its strategic objectives. It has threatened Israel, our Gulf partners and other allies of the UK and US, culminating in the attack on a number of our allies earlier this year and last year. Last May, I had the opportunity to go to Bahrain and see our troops there—to think that they were being bombed by Iran is utterly disgusting. We need to have a robust response to that.

I have to say, I found the response of the UK Government and the current Prime Minister weak-willed at best. He seemed to be happy to allow American fighter jets to take off from our bases and to be willing for our British fighters to shoot down incoming missiles, but was not willing to use our bases and fighter jets to shoot the missile launchers. That seems utterly bizarre to me. The Prime Minister was extraordinarily fortunate that one of those incoming missiles did not hit and kill personnel at Akrotiri or hit a hotel in Dubai full of British citizens. If that had happened, I think the British public’s mood towards this Prime Minister would have changed, and changed rapidly. I do hope that the incoming Prime Minister will have a much more robust response when dealing with these threats from not just Iran, but a number of its proxy actors.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Is my hon. Friend, in that one sentence, not summing up what the problem with today’s debate has been? The contributions that have been made, including from the Government Front Bench, clearly do not reflect the urgency with which the Leader of the House outlined the change in business yesterday. This debate was clearly scheduled to stop a motion being put to this House to make the new Prime Minister come to this House. It will now be at least a month and a half before any of the questions that my hon. Friend has just asked will be answered.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The fact that the incoming Prime Minister has run away from any kind of scrutiny, whether it be from us, the press or anybody else, does him a disservice, and I think he will come to regret that decision. I do not know the right hon. Gentleman personally, but from Labour Members I have spoken to understand that he is good on his feet and can talk, so it surprises me that he does not want to come to the House and answer those questions.

None the less, we are having this debate, and it is an important one. I spoke about proxies. Hezbollah, for example, remains a heavily armed organisation despite international obligations and years of diplomatic pressure. Hamas has not abandoned violence, and the Houthis continue to threaten freedom of navigation and regional security well beyond Yemen. Iran’s network of proxies may be under pressure, but it remains one of the principal drivers of instability across the middle east.

That brings me to the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been mentioned. The IRGC cannot simply be treated as an ordinary branch of Government. It is the institution most closely associated with Iran’s external military operations, its support for those proxy groups, its intimidation campaigns abroad, and its efforts to undermine the security and safety of Britain and our allies.

Earlier this year I co-signed a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for the IRGC to be proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. I did so because the evidence is compelling, and recent developments have only strengthened the case for action. I welcome steps taken in recent years to respond to the increased threat posed by Iran. Last year the Iranian state was placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. That was an important national security measure to increase transparency around activities undertaken on behalf of foreign powers. More than 500 Iranian individuals and entities have been sanctioned, restricting their access to the international financial system, imposing consequences on those responsible for the malign activity, and demonstrating that Britain will not ignore threats to our national security.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will be proscribed under the Terrorism Act. It is a really significant step, because it reflects the reality that the IRGC is not merely a political or even a military institution of a foreign Government but an organisation that is responsible for activities that pose a direct threat to Britain, our citizens and our allies. I note that Conservative Members have been calling for proscription of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation as early as 2023, and I know that others across the Chamber did so. I thank them for their efforts in getting us to this point.

The Government have taken a number of important steps to respond to the threat posed by Iran, but this is an important national security measure, because it is designed to increase transparency. We should also be clear about what the measures were and what they are not. Sanctions matter—they are really important, despite what some hon. Members on the Labour Benches have said. Foreign influence registration matters, and action against Iran-linked organisations matters, but they are not the same as proscription under the Terrorism Act.

This debate takes place against the backdrop of Iran’s continuing nuclear ambitions. Britain has consistently supported diplomacy in the region. Where diplomacy can succeed, that remains the right approach, but nobody should underestimate the consequences of further military action and escalation in the middle east. Diplomacy cannot succeed without pressure. It cannot succeed without enforcement. It cannot succeed if Iran believes that international commitments can be ignored without consequences.

Sanctions, international co-ordination and robust enforcement all have a role to play. The international community must remain determined that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon capability that would further destabilise an already fragile region and place additional pressure on our allies.

From past engagement, we know that the Iranian regime has historically responded not to weakness, ambiguity or pleasant overtures, but to strength, unity and resolve. Iranian state-linked actors have been responsible for hostile activity directed towards the United Kingdom, including the intimidation, espionage and threats that I mentioned against individuals on British soil. Protecting the British public must remain the Government’s first duty. Our response must therefore match that scale of threat.

Iran undoubtedly faces profound internal challenges of its own—its economy, its regional position and the public confidence in the regime are together a real pressure on that regime—but, unfortunately, none of that internal pressure means that change is inevitable. The British public therefore expect the Government not merely to recognise the threats but to confront them.

In closing, I wish to ask the Minister a few questions. First, what is the timetable for completing the legal process for bringing the proscription fully into force? Secondly, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that the evidence base and legal reasoning underpinning the decision are sufficiently robust to withstand any potential judicial challenge? Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the likelihood of any appeal or judicial review? What contingency planning is there, should legal proceedings be brought?

Fourthly, what additional operational benefits will proscription provide to the police and security services in identifying, disrupting and prosecuting IRGC-linked activity in the United Kingdom? Finally, how will the Government work with our international partners—including the United States and other allies who have long recognised the threat posed by the IRGC—to ensure that this decision has maximum impact?

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way as he is about to close. He talked about the importance of international co-operation to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability; I completely agree with him. Where the UK has had success before, that has been in concert with the French and the Germans. With the French presidential election this year with the current president moving on, does he agree that there is a real opportunity for Britain to lead that European co-operation to try to address the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability?

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that Britain should be the leader and at the forefront of any negotiations and international coalitions, not just because we have the skills and the history to be able to do so but because that would demonstrate to our European allies—perhaps even more importantly, to the Americans—that we as a country are willing to stand up and do our bit.

The Government really must ensure that the right decision they have taken is implemented swiftly, defended robustly and enforced effectively. The decision has been made; now, the test is the delivery.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

10. What discussions he has had with service chiefs on the proposed level of spending in the forthcoming defence investment plan.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

19. What discussions he has had with service chiefs on the proposed level of spending in the forthcoming defence investment plan.

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

The forthcoming defence investment plan has been informed by a range of inputs and perspectives, including those of service chiefs. These contributions have been critical in delivering on the strategic defence review and in enabling the transformation within defence that is necessary as we move towards warfighting readiness.

[Luke Pollard]

I know that the right hon. Member has strong views on defence, as do I. As a Government, we are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget: it will be 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The strategic defence review will be implemented by the defence investment plan. That will set out what capabilities we are buying and how we can improve our warfighting readiness. He will have to wait a wee bit longer as the work continues to deliver that plan very soon.

[Gregory Stafford]

When Labour published the strategic defence review, the independent authors wrote in The Telegraph that the commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence was “vital” to establishing the affordability of that review. Now the Government’s own service chiefs are voicing their concern over funding. Is the Minister really telling us that he has no idea in what year they will reach 3% and no plan for how they are going to get there?

[Luke Pollard]

The strategic defence review was written on the basis of reaching 3%, and that is a key part of how we are increasing defence spending. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been given set lines by his party, but his Government cut defence spending. This Labour Government are increasing defence spending.

Use of Drones in Defence

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Fortune]

It is right that we continue to support Ukraine. Our support of Ukraine is keeping us safe in the west, and we need to redouble our efforts to make sure the brave soldiers and people of Ukraine are well defended.

Drones are now an important part of supply chains and logistics, with Ukraine using ground drones to move ammunition and other supplies to the frontline. Operation Spiderweb saw Ukraine smuggle 117 cheap first-person-view drones to successfully strike a Russian airfield, disabling a third of Russia’s strategic bombers. That is drones worth a couple of hundred dollars inflicting an estimated $7 billion of damage.

Sea drones have changed the balance of power in the Black sea. A third of Russia’s fleet was damaged or destroyed by relatively low-cost sea drones packed with explosives ramming ships. While Russia’s navy has adapted to make these attacks harder, sea drones carrying missiles or other drones are still causing immense damage—a $300,000 sea drone can destroy fighter jets worth $50 billion.

Drones are transforming warfare and levelling the playing field in asymmetric fights, but the change can be seen beyond Ukraine. Israel weakened Iran’s attacks on its territory by covertly transporting drones in suitcases and trucks to destroy Iranian air defences and missiles. Houthi rebels used drones to target HMS Diamond, requiring the ship to use its expensive missiles to stop a relatively cheap attack. Even drug cartels in Mexico are using cheap drones to launch targeted strikes against security services. Terrorist groups are also adapting commercially available drones for reconnaissance and filming propaganda, and they will undoubtedly be used in future attacks.

The pace of change is unbelievably fast, but the direction is clear: drone warfare is the future, and Britian must be the leader in the development, testing and mass deployment of drones. That means three things. First, we must develop an ecosystem of private enterprises that can innovate, test and build drone models—big and small, sophisticated and simple—at a larger scale. Ukraine is armed with many UK-made drones. We have supplied some 70,000 already and have a target of 100,000 by the end of the year, but that pales in comparison with the numbers required for drone warfare. Ukraine aims to produce 4.5 million this year.

It would take relatively little money to kick-start a collection of competing companies, capable of innovating to keep up with battlefield changes, to build inexpensive or sophisticated drones. We must also help commercial drone enterprises to thrive. Although they were not initially intended to, those machines can have military purposes and can provide the industrial-scale drone warfare that we require. It is disappointing and frankly unacceptable that, since the general election, the Government have purchased only three drones for the UK armed forces.

Secondly, if the UK procures many new drones, we will be able to start training our forces and learning the lessons from Ukraine. Although our brave service personnel use drones for many tasks, they are not as widely utilised as modern warfare demands.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, with which I agree. Like him, I have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the Royal Marines. Over the past year, he and I have seen drones deployed—I will not say where. More importantly, there is innovation in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, but it is compartmentalised and bitty, and it is not at the scale that he is talking about. Is it not time for the Government to use the innovation in the armed forces to expand out into the private sector?

[Peter Fortune]

This is a good point at which to mention the armed forces parliamentary scheme, of which colleagues from across the House are part. That great enterprise enables us to better understand the pressures and the reality that our armed forces personnel face. My hon. Friend is right that we have visited sites where we have seen how drones can be used and how effective they can be for deployment on the battlefield. That drives my request to the Minister to look at how we can procure more drones.

We are steadfast in our support for Ukraine, where we have made the military links we need to learn how drones can make our British forces even more lethal. They can carry out unmanned assaults and provide the support that our personnel need.

Finally, and in equal measure, we need to look at how the armed forces can counter drones—what we can do to fight them off. HMS Diamond is a particular case in point, as it successfully destroyed nine Houthi drones, but at huge expense. We have seen the damage that drones have inflicted on prestigious targets—Russian jets, ships and bombers—so we clearly need to defend ourselves from them. As a nation, we cannot afford to let cheaply purchased drones with a grenade attached wreck a multimillion-pound piece of equipment. We are already developing solutions such as radio frequency directed energy weapons, capable of neutralising swarms of drones, but as we look to ramp up defence spending in a more dangerous world, the threat posed by cheap drones must be answered.

Drones will not make infantry, artillery, ships or aircraft obsolete; they are a new tool that will help to transform warfare. They must be an integral part of our efforts to strengthen the UK’s armed forces and face down the threats our country now faces.

Royal British Legion

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Member is spot-on; it is pivotal to ensure that the story is continued all the way through, not only in our nation but across the world. He leads me nicely on to my next point, because the Royal British Legion education programme, which will bring stories from the second world war into classrooms using educational resources and digital capsules of VE Day stories, is under creation. The RBL is honouring the sacrifices of those who came before us while ensuring that their legacy shapes our future. Of course, it is not just world wars that we need to continue to remember but more recent conflicts, too: Korea; the Falklands; Northern Ireland; Bosnia and Kosovo; and the Gulf deployments in place like Iraq and, of course, Afghanistan.

Nationally, the RBL’s impact is undeniable—distinct, poignant, respectful and powerful—but an organisation is only as strong as the sum of its parts, so I turn to the Royal British Legion branches in Hinckley and Bosworth. I am privileged to have the following RBL branches in my constituency: Barwell and Earl Shilton; Burbage; Market Bosworth; Ashby-de-la-Zouch; and Ibstock.

The Hinckley branch is branch No. 96, being the 96th legion to be created since the Royal British Legion was formed in 1921. I know that it is continually active and proactive today, and is managed by some fantastic volunteers, not least the chairman, Lloyd Bagshaw, who is sitting in the Public Gallery today. He is ably supported by Lee Bushill, the vice chair; Mick Nolan, the treasurer; Kiah Brown, the secretary; Ian Walker and Troy Phillips, who are both standard bearers; Dave England, the parade marshal; Lew Snooks, the deputy parade marshal; and the aforementioned Elaine Ward, who is the poppy appeal organiser.

The Hinckley branch has organised numerous public events to commemorate key anniversaries from the Falklands to Korea and D-day. A key focus of the branch’s three-year plan is tackling social isolation, which affects veterans of all ages and is often linked to mental health concerns. The branch’s initiatives include visiting care homes to run accessible activities, participation in coffee mornings and breakfasts for veterans, teaching in schools, and providing support to bereaved families. Families may also request the branch’s standard bearers to attend services and pay homage to the fallen and to veterans. I can only imagine what that must mean to the families affected; it is a powerful demonstration of the community spirit that exists among the armed forces. Fundraising remains vital and the branch’s poppy appeal consistently raises over £40,000 annually. That is a significant total, which shows the perpetual gratitude and benevolent support of the district’s community.

In summing up the contributions of my local RBL branch, I will quote Lloyd Bagshaw himself:

“The fundamental keystone to the foundation of these success falls at the feet of the small cohort of passionate volunteers that assist the Branch in all its activities; primarily during the Poppy Appeal period each year. Many of these volunteer fund raisers are not even Legion Members, they merely have the desire and wish to support the appeal. Without such support and enthusiasm from the community, the Branch and indeed the Legion as an organisation, could not survive. The breadth of my gratitude and sincere thanks to these men and women have no limit.”

Lloyd asked me to single out one particular member of the branch, Mr Ian Walker, who he described as having:

“a passion and commitment to the branch that goes above and beyond.”

Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to do exactly that.

Now, it is said that

“A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions”—

and none more so than the current chairman of Hinckley branch, Lloyd Bagshaw. Other members of the branch tell me that

“typically, of Lloyd, he has omitted, what we all consider to be, a primary nomination—himself."

Several years ago, the branch was facing an uncertain future. Membership had dwindled, activities were scarce and survival was in doubt. Seven years ago, Lloyd joined and saw not the challenges but potential, and without hesitation he took action. With more than 40 years of service in the Royal British Legion, Lloyd was elected chairman unopposed—a testament to the trust placed in him. From day one, he worked tirelessly to restore connections, rebuild relationships and revitalise the branch. His efforts strengthened ties with the Royal Naval Association, St Mary’s church and the local council, creating a support network that transformed the organisation.

Today, the branch is thriving. Events are planned, awareness is high and the community presence is firmly established—all thanks to Lloyd’s leadership. His dedication even uncovered a forgotten milestone, the branch’s centenary, in 2023. Most telling of all, membership has more than doubled under his stewardship, now proudly standing at 87. In the words of one branch member,

“Simply put, we are only here today due to his hard work, selflessness, commitment and enthusiasm.”

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. He is absolutely right that branches are at the heart of the Royal British Legion, but so are the clubs. A number of clubs in my constituency, especially the Hindhead club in Beacon Hill, are under significant financial pressure due to increasing costs—not least, I am afraid, because the Royal British Legion is the landlord and is trying to put up the rent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be great if the Royal British Legion nationally and the Government came together to preserve the clubs as well as the branches?

[Dr Evans]

The service contribution in the community is really important. The role an MP can play, as my hon. Friend no doubt does, is to pull everyone together to have these discussions and see whether a solution can be found. That veteran support is what we all crave in our constituencies, and I am pleased to see him championing his club today.

Turning to the national future and support for our veterans, I was pleased and proud of the last Government’s support for veterans. To give a brief overview, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was set up in 2019 and the former Prime Minister appointed a Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to his Cabinet to report to him directly, with the aim of taking on the challenges faced by our nation’s veterans. Further work by the previous Government included a veterans’ strategy action plan, trauma network and health innovation fund. Therefore, it would be great to hear from the Minister today what steps the current Government are taking to build on the progress made by the previous Government to support the legion’s current priorities.

Those include: strengthening the armed forces covenant duty to include UK and devolved Governments and to cover all policy matters; ensuring that all public bodies ask individuals whether they or immediate family members have served in HM armed forces; ensuring that military compensation is never treated as an income source by means tests for welfare benefit; introducing a national protocol to provide consistent access to public services for armed forces’ families, including increased special educational needs and disabilities support for service children; and removing barriers for families of non-UK service personnel to stay in the UK, waiving fees for indefinite leave to remain and the minimum income requirement. Perhaps the Minister could supply reflections on those issues, as the RBL has raised them specifically.

Time is short; this speech is long. I thought it apt to close this speech simply by reflecting on what happens on the 11th day of the 11th month at the 11th hour. There are times when no words can do justice; silence is the only response that speaks the loudest—felt, felt but not forgotten.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

This afternoon I was contacted by the father of Theodore, who lives in Grayshott in my constituency. Theodore wants to go to the Army Foundation College in Harrogate in September, but Capita has not sent the request for his medical record to his local surgery. Will the Minister look in general at how Capita is performing, and will he ensure in particular that Theodore can attend the foundation college in September?

[Luke Pollard]

I commend Theodore for his interest in attending Harrogate. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will happily to look into it. As he will know, Capita is not continuing the Army recruitment work. It is being replaced by a new tri-service offer that will come online in 2027.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

First of all, I have compassion for those injured or wounded in combat, after seeing many throughout my career. I assure the House that the individual lessons learned from this conflict have been spread throughout the Department and into the single services. Five files, comprising 308 witness statements, are closed and, under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958, these witness statements will remain closed until 2065. However, we will look at reviewing some of these statements, and we will provide a view in due course.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

3. What his Department’s planned timetable is for the strategic defence review.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

The strategic defence review is the first of its kind in the UK. It is externally led and draws widely on experts within Government and the military, as well as those from industry, academia and our allies. The reviewers will report in the spring.

[Gregory Stafford]

With the increasing threats we see around the world, the Government are entitled to conduct a strategic defence review, but that should not be an excuse not to commit to increasing defence spending. Given that the Secretary of State refused to provide a timetable at last week’s urgent question, will he now say yes or no to whether the Government will get to 2.5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of this Parliament?

[John Healey]

Everyone agrees that defence spending must rise. Under this Government, it is increasing by nearly £3 billion next year, and there is a cast-iron commitment that we will set a clear path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. Of course, the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010 with a Labour Government.