Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I would be—[Interruption.] There is an amusing degree of lightness from the Opposition Benches about security matters. I would be delighted to discuss this matter further. The question at issue in the Jonathan Hall report is the state threats proscription-like tool. I accept that the name is rather clunky, but it is focused on the fact that a state, in this case, has proved a persistent threat in the UK, using methods unlike those usually employed by a state. I will not say very much more about that, but Jonathan Hall has identified a gap and it is that gap that we are seeking to fill. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further.

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

Last week, in the most tawdry and cynical fashion, a decision—born in anger and driven by revenge—was bulldozed through this House. I wonder: while the Government were discussing proscribing Palestine Action, did the Minister or any of his Foreign Office colleagues advise that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could also be added to the proscribed list? If they did not, why not? Perhaps he could explain to the House why his Government consider the IRGC to be less of a threat to our national security than Palestine Action.

[Mr Falconer]

In my last answer, I tried to illustrate why proscription of the IRGC is a complicated question, given gaps in the existing legislation. That is one of the reasons why Jonathan Hall has done his review. We are committed to taking forward his recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

This case and Laila’s condition concern me greatly. It has been a top priority every week that I have been in office. At every single level—Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Minister, National Security Adviser—we are engaged with the Egyptians. I believe that our strategy is working, but clearly, given Laila’s health, we must see progress at pace with the Egyptian Government.

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

I recall the right hon. Gentleman, before he became Foreign Secretary, asking the previous Government what “diplomatic price” Egypt had paid for the arbitrary detention of Alaa, before demanding that “serious diplomatic consequences” should be put on Egypt should it not release him. Alaa’s mother is now 278 days into a hunger strike and is critically ill, so let me ask him this: since he became Foreign Secretary, what diplomatic price has Egypt paid, and what serious diplomatic consequences can he point to that Egypt has been forced to pay since July last year?

[Mr Lammy]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I remain in close touch with Laila and the family, and that this is a No. 1 priority for me and I expect to see Alaa released. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he has stood up time after time to raise his concerns about Gaza, and he will understand that if he wants the UK Government to have an effect in Gaza, we must have relations with the Egyptians.

Middle East

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I recall that he also recognises the problems of that nuclear threat and nuclear proliferation. An assessment has not yet been made of the effectiveness of that military action, but he will have heard my remarks in relation to diplomacy. That is the way now, and it will be the way that we get beyond this current crisis.

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

We have now been here for an hour, and still the Foreign Secretary appears incapable of saying whether he supports or condemns America’s actions or whether he regards them as legal, and nowhere in his statement does the role of international law even merit a mention. Will the Foreign Secretary now take this opportunity to tell us whether he believes that America’s unilateral action was compliant with international law?

[Mr Lammy]

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I qualified and was called to the Bar in 1995 and have not practised for the past 25 years. It is not for me to comment on the United States and legality. I refer him to article 51 and article 2 of the UN charter, and he can seek his own advice.

Iran-Israel Conflict

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I have to say to the hon. Member, the story of Israel’s nuclear ability goes back some long way, to the 1980s—I remember studying this many years ago. We work with Israel, and we remain a country that does not want to see nuclear proliferation. We will do everything we can to ensure that others do not get nuclear capability in the region.

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

Let us be clear: there are no good guys in this conflict. The concept of pre-emptive self-defence does not exist in international law, and nor should it. Israel’s decision unilaterally to retaliate first has made the region—indeed the world—a much more dangerous and unstable place. To what extent does the Foreign Secretary believe that the impunity that Israel has enjoyed for previous acts of aggression and war crimes was a factor in Netanyahu’s decision to retaliate first?

[Mr Lammy]

We have had a very serious debate in this House so far that recognises the serious threat that Iran’s nuclear capability poses to the global community and the existential threat that the Israeli people are facing. I have been absolutely clear that diplomacy is the way. Donald Trump is urging a path back to diplomacy. The UK was of course not involved, but we have to be mindful about the many people in both Israel and Iran who are hiding in their bunkers, fearing the loss of their life.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Let me be really clear for the House: we are not selling arms—not bombs, not bullets—for use by Israel in Gaza. We have a carve-out in the F-35 programme in order to maintain the programme, which we and so many of our allies benefit from, but where F-35 parts were directly being sold to Israel, that trade is suspended. We are not providing the weaponry that is being used in Gaza. I reassure my hon. Friends that I and the Government do not think that the actions we have taken today will be the golden answer to getting aid into Gaza. They will not be the golden answer for securing a ceasefire. We will continue to work on all those fronts until we achieve progress.

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

Although we welcome the sanctioning of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, that should have happened a long time ago, and we now need to go much, much further. Further to the previous question, today’s announcement highlights the absurdity of the Government’s position. The Foreign Secretary recently described those Ministers’ views as “repellent” and “monstrous” and today’s statement accepts that Israel is guilty of human rights abuses and is in flagrant breach of international law. On what basis—legal or moral—can the Government continue to supply F-35 components, knowing that the end user will be a regime that they themselves have condemned for espousing repellent and monstrous views, and which they now accept is guilty of human rights violations and is in flagrant breach of international law?

[Mr Falconer]

For the purposes of time, I will not address the legal questions, not least given that they are being considered by a judicial review. We are confident that the limited carve-out we have done to maintain the functioning of the F-35 programme, which is vital to our national security and that of so many of our allies, is legal, proportionate and moral, and we will continue to fight that case in court.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

May I repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), which went unanswered? Last week, 65 members of nine political parties in both Houses wrote to the Prime Minister, asking him to publish the most recent genocide assessment—the one that persuaded him to send his lawyers to the High Court to argue that

“no genocide has occurred or is occurring”.

Will the Government now publish that assessment, so we can all understand how on earth they arrived at the conclusion that the horrors we have witnessed, day in, day out, for months in Gaza do not constitute a genocide?

[Mr Lammy]

I answered that question earlier. I made a sober assessment, based on whether there was a clear risk from our export licensing, and I stand by the statements that I have made.

Gaza: UK Assessment

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I remind the House of the decisions that we took last year. We have discussed the question of the F-35 global spares pool. The basis on which we made a carve-out is clear and has been debated many times. Let me be clear: aside from that carve-out, when we came into government, we took on the solemn duty of making an assessment, which did not appear to have been made, of the serious risk of potential breaches of international humanitarian law. We then suspended arms export licences where those weapons could be used in such conduct—that means in Gaza, on the west bank, and in relation to all the areas where those risks accrued. We took far-reaching action. That action is still in place, and we continue to conduct those assessments.

I can understand why many Members may feel frustrated by the F-35 carve-out. Perhaps they also feel frustrated about our continuing to sell arms that do not risk a violation, according to the assessment that has been much discussed here. We think it right that we, for example, continue to provide body armour that might be used by non-governmental organisations in Gaza, or provide parts of the supply chain that could end up in the hands of NATO allies. We have taken far-reaching action on arms. That is important work that we are proud of.

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

I have just returned from the High Court this morning, where Government lawyers will argue, in defending the continued supply of F-35 components, that the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide, and that there is a

“tenable view that no genocide has occurred or is occurring”.

It appears that the Government—whether they have told the Minister so or not—have already made a determination, and that explains why they have no intention of asking for an independent assessment of whether a genocide is likely. The Government know that if they did ask for one, it would reveal an unpalatable truth that would prevent them from supplying Israel with the weapons that it needs to continue its merciless onslaught. It really is as grubby as that, isn’t it, Minister?

[Mr Falconer]

It is not as grubby as that. First, we will not litigate an ongoing legal case in the Chamber, as Members would expect. A judicial review on the F-35 element is happening over these days. The judge will find on that, and we will respect the judgment. Let me be absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman: we continue to conduct assessments across a full range of responsibilities under international law. It is simply not true to suggest that we are avoiding making any internal assessment in order to justify policy. We continue to assess these things carefully. We do it on a rolling basis, regularly. What he says is simply not true.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Let us not forget what this Government have done. We restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency after the Conservatives froze it. We suspended arms export licences whereas the Conservatives did not take action. We have provided £129 million in humanitarian assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We are not on the other side of the road. I welcome the right hon. Member’s strong views on this; I found his intervention last week very powerful indeed. There is no one on the Labour Benches who does not understand the gravity of the situation. That is why we invited the Palestinian Prime Minister, why we signed the memorandum of understanding, and why we are calling an urgent session of the Security Council. This Government will not be on the other side of the road from Palestinian suffering.

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

Last week the United Nations issued a report describing the situation in Gaza as

“one of the most ostentatious and merciless manifestations of the desecration of human life and dignity”.

The Government have always insisted that it is not for them but for the courts to determine what is and what is not a genocide, but the Minister will know that the genocide convention also puts a legal obligation on states to act to prevent a genocide. Does he believe that the UK has fulfilled its legal obligation under that convention to prevent a genocide in Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

As I said to the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), we are taking action—not just rhetoric, but action—to try to address the situation in Gaza. That includes calling the Security Council to an urgent session this afternoon, alongside our partners. We will continue to take the action that we think is needed to ensure that the people of Gaza get what they need.

London Sudan Conference

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. As I have said in previous answers, we are very focused on the fate of women and girls in Sudan. We have been working through the United Nations and with the emergency relief co-ordinator to ensure that the necessary aid is in place, whether that is for the function of hospitals, to support survivors or to protect the mechanisms to prevent civilian suffering. I will update the House once the position is clearer, given the events of the last few days.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this urgent question and laying out the unimaginable horror of what is currently happening in Sudan. There is a very real danger that the catastrophe in Sudan will spread to neighbouring countries. Since 2023, an estimated 800,000 Sudanese refugees have fled to Chad, which is already one of the poorest countries in the world and ranked No. 1 in the list of countries at risk of genocide. What assessment has been made of the impact of overseas aid cuts to the likelihood of genocide occurring in Chad, and what are the Government doing proactively to prevent a genocide in Chad?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Since the conflict began, 3.6 million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries. That of course includes Chad, but also Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda and the Central African Republic. Many of these countries I know well, and I served in South Sudan for the Department for International Development for two years. These are countries with delicate political balances and that have seen recent incidences of severe conflict. What happens in Sudan makes a difference to neighbouring countries. I do not think that what is centrally at issue here is UK aid to Chad. What is centrally at issue is violent displacement from Sudan, and we will remain focused on those questions.

Gaza: Israeli Military Operations

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Last week, the Foreign Secretary was unequivocal in saying that both sides—Hamas and Israel—were guilty of committing atrocities. Does the Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary that that is the case?

[Mr Falconer]

I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to return to the question asked by the Liberal Democrat Member. To be clear, on the determination of crimes, we leave that to courts. On the determination of risk, we take action.