I call the shadow Foreign Secretary to ask the urgent question.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if she will make a statement on Iran’s violation of the ceasefire.

We strongly condemn the outrageous Iranian attacks on the territory or vessels of our Gulf partners Bahrain, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is a serious escalation. Strikes into countries in the region and their waters are a clear violation of international law and must stop. I have been in touch with my counterparts from all the mentioned countries to express our solidarity and condemn these attacks. Iran’s attacks on civilian vessels were in Omani waters. The UK stands with Oman, with its sovereignty over its own territorial waters, and for the principle and the law of freedom of navigation both in the strait and across the world. We stand with our partners in calling for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. We want a durable, negotiated peace and the strait of Hormuz to fully reopen. The dangerous re-escalation over the past few days and continued attacks hurt everybody. The greatest impact is, of course, felt by the poorest and the most vulnerable. Our priority now is ensuring unimpeded transit passage through the strait without the threat of violence, tolls, fees or conditions. The ceasefire must deliver predictable access rather than ad hoc, case-by-case transits. We will continue to stand up for international law as reflected in the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, freedom of navigation, global navigational rights, seafarer safety and the consistent application of existing rules.

The terrorist regime in Tehran has once again violated the ceasefire, illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz and striking our allies in the region, including Bahrain and Kuwait. These new assaults in the strait on at least three tankers were the most in a single day since April, according to the UN International Maritime Organisation. Earlier this week, the Iranians said they targeted Salman port in Bahrain, where Britain and the US operate naval bases. What were the Government doing when British assets were in danger and our friends and security allies were being attacked by Iran? What exactly are the Government doing to help protect the thousands of British nationals in the region who once again find themselves under rocket fire from Iran? Our security allies once looked to the UK to be a reliable and dependable partner, but their confidence is increasingly shaken. How will the Government put that right? This is a time for action, not words. I have asked again and again what are the British Government doing, or what have they done to date, through the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement to support Bahrain? The NATO Secretary-General said that the strikes by the US were “absolutely necessary”—do the Government agree? We have had little of substance from the Government in recent days, other than the Foreign Secretary’s telly remarks when she said yesterday that she was “very concerned” by the Iranian strikes. The US Administration have announced that they are reimposing oil sanctions on Iran—of course, oil funds its terrorism. When will the Government stop the UK’s financial system being used to launder Iranian terrorist funds? What is the Government’s assessment about whether the ceasefire framework and the 60-day period in the agreement remain? Let us be honest: the fact that Iran continues to breach the ceasefire and threatens our interests on a daily basis demonstrates that the Government have failed to have a clear plan to get defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the decade, leaving our country exposed and our security at risk. While Ministers are putting their job security ahead of the defence and the interests of this country, this discredited Labour Government have failed to offer solutions to the most serious and significant conflict that the world has seen in decades or to be part of any negotiations. Britain has a huge stake in the future of the middle east, but under Labour our interests have been neglected and our standing in the world has fallen.

I do not quite know what to say to that. I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary will know—she can look me in the eye—that it is unlikely to be the debates around the defence investment plan that led to strikes in Iran and the Gulf over the past few days. I am here to talk about serious questions of war and peace, and I hope we can avoid party politics in doing so.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

May I associate myself with the Minister’s condemnation of Iran’s attacks on its neighbours? Does he agree that at least part of the problem in the fragility of the deal is its very ambiguity? It is a deal that was negotiated in haste, at a distance and through third parties, and it inevitably does not reflect agreement, but rather fudges some of the deep differences between the parties. Does he agree that we need a sustainable deal that is thoroughly negotiated, has more detail and includes recognition that, inevitably, concessions are needed on both sides?

As a former negotiator, I am reluctant to criticise fudges and creative language as negotiators must often reach for them. However, there are many areas that cannot be fudged and where there is no ambiguity, for example the location of Oman’s territorial waters and the rights that flow from that. The strikes conducted by Iran this week were not only against land targets, but against commercial shipping. There was no ambiguity whatsoever about the location of those vessels: Oman’s waters and its rights under UNCLOS. These are not questions that were at the negotiating table in relation to the memorandum of understanding. We will continue to stand for them, here and in every place.

It would be helpful if the Minister turned to me now and again during his answers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Iran is continuing to hold the global economy to ransom through its reckless strikes in the strait of Hormuz—we all agree on that. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s continuing tit-for-tat retaliations risk dragging the whole region back into a full-blown conflict. This would threaten the lives of citizens across the middle east, while heaping even more economic harm on millions of British people already struggling with the spiralling cost of living. Donald Trump has claimed that the war has been a huge success, but in reality it has been a costly humiliation for the President. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Department is taking to get both sides back to the negotiating table? Are we working with our reliable allies to secure a diplomatic resolution? Will the Minister also update the House on the status and health of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, who are still imprisoned in Iran? Will the Minister recognise their detention as arbitrary and will he refer the case to the International Court of Justice? Will the Minister confirm that after the National Security (State Threats) Bill was passed yesterday, the Government will move immediately to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the exporter of Iranian terror?

I will not get ahead of the process laid out in the legislation that was passed last night, but it is clearly an important step forward in providing the British Government and Britain as a whole with another weapon in our armoury to tackle hostile state threats. I have not had the opportunity to update the House since I summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires on Monday, so I am pleased to do so. We will have all seen the judgment handed down in the case on Friday related to Iranian threats in this country against journalists. I reiterated in the strongest possible terms to the Iranian representatives the strength of feeling among Members of the House and people across the country, and the fact that we are taking concrete steps, including the ones the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in order to ensure that no agent of the Iranian regime can commit violence in this country. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am very much focused on the case of the Foremans in Iran, but for reasons of sensitivity I do not wish to be drawn further into the case at this moment.

We are still waiting to learn the full extent of British military involvement in this conflict. The Minister must confirm whether the UK’s authorisation for the US to use British airbases continued as the ceasefire has collapsed. With 170 US airstrikes on Iran over the past two days, is the UK undertaking case-by-case authorisation for each individual strike? Secondly, I have asked numerous times about the 2020 UK-Israel military co-operation agreement, and I have not received a straight answer. With credible evidence of crimes against humanity in Gaza, the Minister has not yet replied to my letter from over a month ago asking whether an international law review of that agreement has been conducted. Can the Minister outline when I can expect a response?

I am sorry I have not replied to the correspondence yet; I will do so as quickly as I can. In relation to the question about military support, I want to be clear: the UK stands with our Gulf allies in a defensive capacity. As the shadow Foreign Secretary alluded to, we do provide capability to our friends and partners in the Gulf to protect themselves against these attacks. We do also continue to provide permissions to the United States to use our airbases, where they are taking defensive action on behalf of our partners and allies. Those arrangements have been discussed by the relevant Ministers from the Ministry of Defence on a number of occasions, and they remain in place.

I ask this question in all sincerity. Throughout this conflict, the Government have pleaded for de-escalation, but if Iran is gratuitously escalating, should we not give unambiguous support to the Americans for retaliating? Who else is going to retaliate against gratuitous escalation by Iran if it is not the Americans? Rather than hedging our bets, can we not give more unambiguous support—if not military support, then political support—for the United States’ efforts to resolve this conflict? It has already given so much ground in the negotiations. We cannot complain that it has not tried to be as reasonable as it possibly can.

I have sought in all my remarks to remain grounded in the relevant principles of international law. It is absolutely clear that the strikes Iran has conducted this week in Omani waters or on the territory of our friends and partners are a breach of international law. That then provides, under the relevant framework, options for response. We are not party to that response, but we are party to seeking to shoot down these attacks when they threaten our friends and partners. I do not want to enter into an emotional discussion of these questions. We are absolutely clear that what is happening in the strait of Hormuz and the wider region is a threat to international law, which this Chamber and this country hold dear, and it must be upheld.

Does my hon. Friend agree that among the geopolitical military strategy and the diplomatic negotiations surrounding the conflict, we must not lose sight of the millions of innocent civilians across the region who are trapped in the middle of violence, displaced from their homes, hungry and without access to healthcare, while grieving loved ones and living without safety and security? Will he set out what steps the Government are taking to press all parties to uphold international humanitarian law, to protect civilians from acute hunger and allow them access to basic healthcare?

As I alluded to earlier, the impact on the cost of living in this country from the events in the strait of Hormuz is obvious and pronounced, but it is even more acute across the region—for example, in Yemen, where people already face severe and acute malnutrition. The economic pressure caused by these continued closures will plunge some of the most vulnerable people in the world even deeper into hunger and poverty, and we are raising that point in all our engagements.

The flagrant breaches of the ceasefire that have taken place clearly demonstrate that Iran has no interest in anything other than dominating the region. The Minister may call in the chargé d’affaires, and he may call for action, but we want to see some action from the UK Government. Will he undertake to expel those people who are involved in action in the UK that threatens Iranian citizens living in the UK who are not part of this regime? Will he take action to ensure that the so-called foreign diplomats in the Iranian embassy are kicked out, to demonstrate that we are not going to tolerate this?

It is important that we maintain relations with the regime in Tehran. It is important, for many of the reasons that have been alluded to this morning, that we continue to make our point of view understood forcefully and directly to Iranian representatives. The hon. Gentleman asks about concrete steps. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), alluded to one that was voted through just last night—one that was not put in place over the period of the previous Government. We are taking the steps required to ensure that Britain has the armoury necessary to take action against state threats, including those that emanate from Iran, as we heard from the judge in the case on Friday.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) has alluded to Craig and Lindsay Foreman, who are still imprisoned in Tehran. Craig Foreman is on day 61 of his hunger strike, and Lindsay Foreman is on day 50 of her hunger strike. They clearly need to be released immediately and returned to the UK. I understand that the Minister said he did not want to be drawn on this matter, but will he tell me why the Government will not publicly and officially declare the imprisonment to be arbitrary? Why will they not provide Craig and Lindsay Foreman with diplomatic protection, work closely with allies to get them released and bring their case before the International Court of Justice?

The reason I am not often keen to be drawn in this Chamber on specific cases is that I have to make a judgment, as the whole Government do, about what we can do in the best interests of British nationals detained overseas. The hon. Lady references arbitrary detention—a concept that does not exist in UK law. She also mentions the ICJ—I think she is referring to a previous case, which was withdrawn—and the view held by some that that would be a helpful thing to do in other cases. Unfortunately, the responsibilities that fall to me mean that I need to be careful publicly what I say about particular cases, particularly when they are about two named individuals who are under the jurisdiction of the Iranians. All the responsibilities for the welfare of Craig and Lindsay Foreman fall, for now, on the authorities in Tehran. Until they are released, which they should be immediately, Iran must take full care of our nationals under its control.

I join the Minister in condemning Iran’s attacks in the region, but at some point very soon the UK will need to review its own defensive posture vis-à-vis UK armed forces responses in the region. Iran’s nuclear programme is diminished, not destroyed. Its ballistic missile programme is diminished, not destroyed. The Iranian regime is diminished, not destroyed. Meanwhile, the Iranian people continue to suffer—many of them have been executed in the last few days—and so do our friends and allies in the region, as we have seen over the last few hours. My constituents in Shropshire also continue to suffer, because of higher fuel prices. The United States has been around for 250 years; Iran—Persia—has been around for 2,500 years. Given that President Trump is supposed to be the great dealmaker, does the Minister agree that the Iranians are perhaps a little better at doing deals—or at not doing deals—than President Trump first thought when he set out on this adventure? Does the Minister also agree that it is perhaps time for the United Nations to get more involved?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to comment on the role that the United Nations has played in recent weeks, particularly the role of the IMO. We support the IMO’s efforts, because there are many seafarers whose welfare depends on being able to get out of the strait of Hormuz safely. We have been in regular contact with the IMO, and we support its efforts; it is absolutely vital that it can make them. For diplomatic reasons, I will decline to comment on age versus youth as a superior skill in diplomacy.

I am glad that the Minister made that point. May I welcome his acknowledgment and recognition of the implications for domestic industry of what is happening in the Gulf, especially for our food producers and food price inflation? The Minister’s Department has an enormous amount of expertise and knowledge. Will he give me some assurance that that expertise and knowledge is being deployed across Government so that we can mitigate the worst effects on our domestic economy, especially in relation to giving early warning of what is going on?

That is a very important question. I was involved in foreign affairs before I came to this House, and I recognise that, perhaps more so than in practically any period in recent history, foreign affairs determines the cost of living for every one of our constituents, and sets the circumstances in which every business in every constituency is now operating. The Foreign Office is seeking to play its full role across Government in helping British businesses and Britons to navigate what are difficult times.

The Minister and I have a shared interest in Yemen, and I am sure he will welcome the fact that next week, the International Development Committee is holding a focused inquiry into the current situation in Yemen, particularly the issue of malnutrition. More generally, can the Minister give us confidence that contingency plans are in place for communication with British citizens in the Gulf if the situation escalates further?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s focus on Yemen. I reassure the House that I do remain focused on Yemen, as do other Ministers—it is vital that we see the release of the detained humanitarian workers, access to humanitarian supplies for the Yemenis, and peace and security for a country that is much benighted. I can also reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we do have contingency plans in place, and I encourage Members of this House to encourage their constituents to look at travel advice. We have relaxed the travel advice in recent weeks, particularly in the Gulf region. We do our best to make sure our advice is as up to date as possible, and people should look at it before they travel. We try not to be over-cautious; we will do all the contingency planning we can, but British nationals also have a responsibility to take sensible precautions.

Iran’s attack on commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz is clearly a flagrant breach of international law, and incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. The escalating US response is also extremely dangerous, and it is not just tit for tat—it is a disproportionate escalation. Let us not forget that this war was started by the US and Israel choosing to launch attacks on Iran on 28 February. Can the Minister say what the UK Government are doing to maximise pressure on both parties to come back to the negotiating table—through sanctions and so forth, on Iran and on the US—to pull them back from the brink of this incredibly dangerous moment of escalation?

As I hope was clear in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, there are international principles in play here that go beyond simply Iran, the United States, or even the region—principles of the freedom of navigation and the global commons. That is why I sought to focus so much on those issues in my response. The hon. Lady asks what we are doing to ensure that the talks succeed. We are in close contact with all involved, which includes making points directly and forcefully to Tehran and, of course, talking to our friends in Washington. We want diplomacy to succeed, but we also must see those international principles—those linchpins of international law—sustained and maintained, both in the strait of Hormuz and globally.

The ongoing conflict puts our own energy security at risk, so can the Minister assure us that our energy supply routes are safe and there is no risk of blackouts this winter?

I am sure a Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will give the hon. Gentleman such an assurance—I do not think there is any concern in that area—but let me be direct. We get a lot of energy via the strait of Hormuz. The strait of Hormuz is clearly not open, so if the hon. Gentleman is asking me, “What do the supply chains for British energy look like?”, the answer is that they look like global energy supply chains: under very considerable pressure, and under more pressure because of what Iran has done this week.

Could I take the Minister back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum)? How many US flights have recently taken off from the UK to bomb Iran? When decisions on granting permission for those flights to take place are made, is the Minister consulted on the target and purpose of them, and is he really satisfied that anyone in Iran thinks these are anything other than aggressive attacks on the people of Iran? This is an awful situation—it is very, very dangerous in many, many ways. Is it not time to try to bring the good offices of Pakistan back in, to try to arrange a further ceasefire and a long-term, peaceful arrangement to stop this conflict in the strait of Hormuz, which is so dangerous?

The arrangements that govern UK-US military co-operation and the use of our bases have been set out in some detail by Defence Ministers. They remain in place and they include provisions that the Secretary of State for Defence has discussed on the Floor of the House a number of times before. I agree with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that we want to get back to a ceasefire. Pakistan has played a vital role, as have Qatar and other mediators. I have been in regular contact with mediators from a range of countries, and I was glad to discuss these issues during my recent visit to Islamabad.

The Iranian regime is abhorrent. It has oppressed its people for decades, murdering protesters and activists, and it is no friend of ours. Its attacks on civilian shipping risk a global crisis, yet Donald Trump’s escalation and the US’s poorly targeted attacks have put civilians and our friends in the Gulf at huge risk, with the risk of a large-scale regional conflict. Will the Minister assure us that the FCDO keeps plans for the evacuation of British nationals in the region under review, in case they should be required?

I reassure the House that the Foreign Office keeps contingency plans for the region under close review. We were incredibly grateful for the co-operation of our partners and, indeed, the support of British nationals themselves in the very speedy departure from the Gulf during the outbreak of this conflict. It is clear that should there be any difficulty—although there is no suggestion that there is—in the region for travelling British nationals, we will need the co-operation of British nationals and those in the region. It is very unlikely, and it is quite a distant prospect, that a further evacuation will be required.

I thank the Minister for his answers. His words are always well chosen, and I think he encapsulates the energy and opinion of this House. The IRGC continues to wage war against humanity, executing prisoners, ruthlessly spying on dissidents on British soil and orchestrating severe targeted persecution against religious minorities, including our Christian brothers and sisters in Iran. The IRGC also continues to block the strait of Hormuz and attack peaceful neighbours. What discussions have the Minister and the Government had with our NATO and USA allies to collectively respond and show Iran that its continued state-sponsored terrorism will no longer be tolerated?

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the threats that the IRGC has posed in the region and internationally. As I said in an earlier answer, domestic measures are being introduced in relation to state threats, and I imagine that we will have more to say about the employment of that new tool shortly. On the international position, we have made a series of interventions, both internationally and in the region, to try to reduce Iran’s malign role in the region. We have spent most of this urgent question discussing what is happening in the strait of Hormuz, but there are clearly Iranian militias right across the region continuing to threaten civilians, stability and the security of the region.

Before we start business questions, I would like to thank David Weir, the Clerk at the Table today, who is retiring from the House after 32 years, working first in Hansard and then as a Clerk. I wish David all the best. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He is a man of many talents—he is a writer, a playwright, a director and a producer. The strings of his bow will be played elsewhere, rather than at the Table. I say to David, thank you for all that you have done.