Iran
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton
I think we always make our position very clear on all these matters. This debate is about the situation we face today in the Gulf, and it is for the Opposition to ask the Government the questions, and for the Government to explain the answers to the Opposition. We will all have to sit in the Chamber and wait for the winding-up speeches at the end of the debate.
Our allies once looked to Britain as a reliable and dependable partner; increasingly, that confidence is being tested. This is a time for action, not words. The strait of Hormuz is not simply a regional concern, but one of the world’s most strategically important waterways. Its security matters to global trade, to international energy markets and to British families who feel the impact when instability drives up prices.
Iran cannot be allowed to use access to this vital route as leverage against the international community whenever it seeks concessions—preventing that must be a central objective of British foreign policy—yet where is the Government’s strategy to ensure that never happens again? Where is Britain’s influence in shaping the future security architecture in the Gulf? Where is our leadership? Instead, Ministers have too often appeared to be spectators, rather than participants.
At precisely the moment when Britain should have been strengthening alliances and advancing our national interests, the Government have appeared distracted and uncertain. That matters, because influence is not something that Britain is automatically entitled to; it is something that we must earn. It depends on credibility, capability and the confidence of our allies that Britain will stand alongside them when it matters most. That confidence has been weakened by uncertainty over an unfunded defence investment plan, and by a Government who too often appear reactive, rather than decisive. Nowhere is that clearer than in the Government’s handling of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The decision to designate the IRGC as a foreign power state threat is welcome, but it is long overdue. It is not simply another military organisation; it is the principal instrument through which the Iranian regime suppresses dissent, exports violence and spreads extremism. It has crushed protests inside Iran, financed terrorism abroad, facilitated sanctions evasion, spread propaganda, intimidated dissidents living here in Britain and repeatedly threatened our national security.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that everything she has just accused the Government of not doing is exactly what her Government did not do for 10 years? The IRGC is exactly the same now as it was when her party was in government. I am not a great supporter of the Labour Government, as Labour Members will be quick to say, but please do not take the moral high ground when it comes to proscribing the IRGC.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman from the SNP makes a very interesting point, but what did his party ever do on that front? I also remind Government Members that they have been in power for two years. They have had plenty of time. It is no good always throwing the “14 years” argument at us. They have had two years.
Our security and intelligence services deserve enormous credit for disrupting Iranian-linked plots against individuals in this country, but they should not be expected to carry that burden without the full backing of Government. Earlier this year, when protesters in Iran faced violent repression at the hands of the IRGC, the Opposition repeatedly offered to work constructively with Ministers to pass emergency legislation. Those offers were ignored, valuable time was lost and the threat continued.
The Government must explain how the designation will be enforced. How will those acting on behalf of the IRGC in Britain be identified? How will Iranian financial networks operating in the United Kingdom be dismantled? What steps are being taken to prevent our financial system from being used to launder funds linked to the Iranian regime and its terrorist activities? When will Ministers finally be able to say that Iran’s corrosive influence inside Britain has properly been disrupted? Announcements alone do not keep the public safe; enforcement does.
We should not forget the Iranian people. Our argument has never been with them; indeed, no people have suffered more at the hands of their regime than the people of Iran. Millions of brave Iranians have risked everything in pursuit of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Many have paid with their liberty, and many with their life. Tens of thousands were slaughtered earlier this year simply for wanting the basic freedoms that we enjoy.
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.
Brian Leishman
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far—he is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the actions of Trump and, therefore, Netanyahu are not born out of a passion for the liberation of the Iranian people but are an imposition of imperialist forces, and with imperialism naturally comes capitalism? It is ordinary Iranian people who are suffering on the back of that.
Brendan O’Hara
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his—as usual—erudite explanation. The point he is making is fundamentally correct: this was not done to help liberate the people of Iran from an oppressive theocracy. It was done for American security, and because of an American belief that they had some kind of God-given right to the mineral wealth that is below the ground in the middle east and beyond. That is what this war is about; it is not about liberation. Even yesterday, having U-turned on his latest plan for the zillionth time, Trump announced:
“We’re going to knock out all their power plants.”
Even after all that has happened—even after all that this man has said—he is still planning to knock out power plants, the power plants that supply the electricity that keeps the lights on in the houses of the people he is supposedly determined to liberate. As we all know, targeting civilian infrastructure is a breach of international law, but sadly, what regard has either Trump or Netanyahu for international law as this year develops?
This reckless and illegal action has set back the cause of human rights in Iran by decades. It has strengthened the position of the regime in Tehran, allowing it to portray itself as the victim, rather than being made to account for its appalling human rights record. America and its allies have sacrificed international law and have once again shown that their doctrine of “might is right” will somehow prevail. That has brought financial hardship to every single home in every single community, in every single part of the United Kingdom, and for what? The world is less safe, the Iranian people are suffering more, and the Epstein scandal has not gone away.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026, the Ayes were 330 and the Noes were 109, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots, the Ayes were 330 and the Noes were 109, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Middle East
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
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.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
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?
John Healey
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.
1994 RAF Chinook Crash
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Dowd. I, too, begin by thanking the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate and for the thoughtful and considered way in which he opened it.
This debate is long overdue, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s hope that it will be the start of a process that leads to a much-needed and much-called-for fully independent, judge-led public inquiry. That inquiry must be able to compel people to give evidence so that we and, more importantly, the families can get to the truth of exactly what happened on the evening of 2 June 1994 when that ill-fated Chinook Mk 2 crashed into a fog-shrouded hillside on the Mull of Kintyre at the southernmost tip of my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency.
It was of course a tragedy for the families, but it has also had a deep and lasting impression on the community of Campbeltown and south Kintyre, many of whom were first on the scene of the accident and are still haunted by the experience. This is deeply personal for many of my constituents. The issue has come up time and again since my election to this place in 2015, brought to my attention by people in the local area. I recall attending a packed memorial service at Southend parish church on 2 June 2019 to mark the 25th anniversary of the disaster, before joining scores of local people on that desolate, windswept hillside on the Mull of Kintyre for a ceremony at the memorial cairn erected to the memory of all those who died in the crash.
The families have fought for more than three decades to get to the truth of what happened to their loved ones, only to be met by a wall of silence and obfuscation by the Ministry of Defence and repeated refusals to meet with them. No doubt the Minister will point to the fact that there have been numerous inquiries and investigations into the crash, but she knows that not one of those investigations has examined the central question of why the decision was made to authorise a flight in an aircraft that was known to be unfit and not airworthy. She knows, too, that every inquiry hitherto has not had the power to compel evidence, which is why it is essential that we have an independent, judge-led public inquiry.
The Minister will also know that many of the findings of those early investigations have been thoroughly discredited, particularly the shameful attempt by the Ministry of Defence to pin the blame on the flight crew—Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook—who she knows were both subsequently fully exonerated. As one of the family members told me recently,
“Rick and Jonathan were the best pilots, flying the worst aircraft.”
Of course, if the MOD was so confident that it had got to the bottom of what happened on the Mull of Kintyre that evening and that there is nothing more to learn, why would it lock away and seal the key technical and legal documents for 100 years? There is a catalogue of such incidents, which means that the trust between the families and the MOD has completely evaporated over the past 31 years.
That suspicion and loss of trust is deeply entrenched among the families. I recall, in 2019, raising on the Floor of the House of Commons how rumours were circulating that the Ministry of Defence was about to destroy some of the files pertaining to the crash. I had to ask the then Leader of the House to make sure that her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence did no such thing. That was the level of distrust back in 2019, and sadly, it has not improved.
Last month, I was honoured to be asked, alongside the hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), to join the families when they handed in a 51,000-name petition to Downing Street, demanding an independent judge-led public inquiry to get to the bottom of why that unairworthy aircraft was allowed to leave Belfast, and why it subsequently crashed into a Scottish hillside. After we handed in the petition, a few of us sat with the families for a few hours to hear about the impact the crash has had on them—not just the crash but the subsequent cover-up.
I leave Members with some of the statements I jotted down from those meetings with those still-grieving family members. One of them told us:
“It is like living with a chronic disease… the pain is always there.”
Another, whose father was a senior police officer on board, said that because of their circumstances,
“we all held our lives so dearly, but officers and Ministers held it so cheaply when they loaded them”—
their families—
“on to that Chinook.”
A third added that
“this is not a political issue. It is just an old-fashioned issue of right versus wrong.”
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is hugely significant that two former Defence Secretaries, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Sir Liam Fox, have publicly expressed their support for the families’ campaign, stating that they now believe that they were misled regarding the circumstances of the flight. Given that, it has become increasingly difficult to conclude anything other than that what we have witnessed for the past 31 years is simply a cover-up. It is not a cover-up for reasons of national security; it is a cover-up for reasons of national embarrassment.
Military Co-operation with Israel
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate today and for the sincerity of the remarks that he made. I know this is an issue that he cares deeply about. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Recent months have seen dramatic shifts in global geopolitics, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown in defending our country’s alliances in uncertain times. These developments are a reminder of how important our country’s defence and security relationships are. In the middle east, we have deep and historical links with both Israel and much of the Arab world. The military co-operation between the UK and Israel helps to keep our country safe. Over decades, Britain and Israel have conducted joint military exercises in areas such as counter-terrorism, cyber-security and defence technology. British troops have been kept safe thanks to co-operation with Israel’s cutting-edge defence sector, particularly in unmanned aerial vehicles, missile defence and radar systems.
The UK and Israel share intelligence on counter-terrorism and security threats posed by Iran, ISIS and other malign actors, both in the middle east and at home. Indeed, it is my understanding that the surveillance flights are actually collecting intelligence relating to the hostages in Gaza, including Avinatan Or, whose mother is British and who has now been held captive for 528 days. I hope the Minister will be able to update us today on whether the UK will continue those surveillance flights and do everything we can to bring Avinatan home.
The UK and Israel’s defence co-operation strengthens our international alliances, most obviously through the F-35 programme, which some other hon. Members have rather maligned today, but which has created more than 20,000 jobs in the UK. I ask for reassurance from the Minister that there will be no change to the UK’s participation in the F-35 programme, and that British- made parts will not be withheld from any of the other participants? Disrupting collaborative programmes that have been painstakingly negotiated over decades with multiple international partners—in this case a programme where we have a unique position as the only tier 1 partner—would mean that we would not be trusted to be a reliable partner in future international collaborative programmes that are critical for our national security, our technological base and the future of our aerospace industry.
I will finish by saying that military co-operation with Israel brings benefits to civilian populations in the middle east—Israeli and Palestinian. Last year, when Iran launched unprecedented ballistic missile attacks against Israel, which could have killed Palestinians as well as Israelis, British jets and intelligence played their role in shooting them down, saving Israeli and Palestinian lives and avoiding a huge escalation that could have brought all-out war across the region. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how the Government intend to strengthen our military co-operation with the middle east’s only democracy.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I am afraid we are out of time for Back Benchers now, but perhaps Brendan O’Hara would like to intervene on the Minister. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ukraine
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maria Eagle
I have not, but I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been having discussions and, indeed, our discussions are ongoing and frequent. I have had contact with my counterpart in Ukraine, just not since yesterday.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Yesterday, no matter that we in this House wish it was not the case, the people of Ukraine were betrayed and the crimes of aggression and annexation were rewarded in a telephone call between Washington and Moscow. Right now, we have to be building closer partnerships with our European allies for whom democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law still actually mean something. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but how will the Government do that in the face of two men who believe that, because of their military superiority, they can do whatever they want to whomever they want?
Maria Eagle
The US Secretary of Defence made it clear yesterday that any peace negotiations that the Americans are involved in need to lead to a durable peace that does not see a resumption of the aggression that has led to this war, and we support that. We have also made it quite clear that these negotiations must involve Ukraine—of course they must. That is the way in which this war will finally end.