Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

3. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 confirmed that, where EU law intersects with devolved competence, those powers will flow directly to the devolved Administrations on exit day. This means that over 100 powers will go directly to the Scottish Parliament. We are also continuing to make progress in establishing common frameworks, which the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) discussed last week.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The Secretary of State is turning a blind eye to the depopulation crisis facing rural Scotland. His Government’s refusal even to consider devolving immigration powers to the Scottish Parliament will cause further damage to these fragile communities. Will he explain to the people and businesses in my constituency how ending freedom of movement will help to solve that depopulation crisis?

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are committed to providing the local NHS with the funding it needs. As my hon. Friend knows, we have announced more than £3.9 billion of new additional capital funding for the NHS up to 2022-23. We announced that last year. The majority is to support the implementation of plans from local communities. I understand that the Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust has resubmitted an application for the £36.2 million of funding in July for the Walsall Manor Hospital emergency department. The Department of Health and Social Care expects the successful schemes to be announced in the autumn, but my right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his campaign.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Q2. Rural Scotland, including my Argyll and Bute constituency, is facing a depopulation crisis that will be exacerbated by Brexit. Last week, Cleland Sneddon, the chief executive of Argyll and Bute Council, added his name to those calling for a more flexible, devolved and regional immigration policy and offered Argyll and Bute as a pilot area to test it. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and the chief executive to discuss the merits of such a proposal?

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman asking a question at PMQs, but he has asked about a regional immigration policy, an issue that the Migration Advisory Committee looked at a while back. It made it very clear that that was not a situation that the Government should accept, partly because of the practical problems in implementing it. When we put forward our proposals for the immigration policy for people coming from the European Union, we will ensure that they are right for the whole United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

9. What his Department’s policy is on using social media consultancies.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

11. What his Department’s policy is on using social media consultancies.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I have clearly answered the point that the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), raised, and if he has specific suggestions that the very clear rules under which the Government operate have been breached, I would like to hear them. But it is very clear, for example, that the Scottish Government target specific audiences, and if he is saying that they do not, I would be very surprised to hear that.

[Brendan O'Hara]

We have been told that the Scotland Office published numerous Facebook posts to coincide with Government visits, but it appears that only the posts relating to the Secretary of State’s constituency received a financial boost. If that is the case and the Scotland Office is seen to be micro-targeting tailored Facebook adverts only on voters in his constituency, does he consider that a misuse of taxpayers’ money and an abuse of power?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman does have a track record of asking questions when he does not know what the answer is going to be. I return very clearly to the point that, if there are specific suggestions that the code under which the Government operate has been breached, they should be made and taken forward in the proper way. But if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Scottish Government do not target specific individuals with their material, he is misleading this House.

European Council

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I strongly advise the Prime Minister to read SNP fishing policy before she comments on it, as she has it spectacularly wrong. Will she explain to the fishing communities of Argyll and Bute why she has agreed to a deal that keeps them in the CFP without a voice? Is that not the worst possible deal that her Government could have achieved for our fishing communities?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, for the 2019 catch, we will of course still be a member of the EU and part of the negotiations. We will be consulted on the 2020 catch and the stability key—the quota—will not change. For the 2021 catch, we will be negotiating as an independent coastal state. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the SNP has changed its policy on membership of the common fisheries policy, I am very interested to hear that, but so far as I am aware, it has not. He needs to talk to his party’s Front Benchers.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. It is important for us to be aware that there are forces that would like power to be taken away from Scotland.

Clause 11 was drafted by people with no understanding of devolution law. It is a midden in its current form. There are questions about the mechanisms that will result from it. Surely, if the Prime Minister’s “union of equals” statement is correct, frameworks should be agreed, not imposed. If, as the Minister said earlier, this is a temporary situation, why should it not lie with the Scottish Government to take that power temporarily until the frameworks are agreed? Our amendment 72 ensures that the devolved legislature would give consent to those appropriate areas in clause 11 before it comes into effect.

As we have heard, the fact that there are 111 powers demonstrates the scowth of the issues at stake. As things stand, however, UK Ministers could simply make changes to important policy areas without the formal consent of the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government, or the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.

We are told to trust that a deal will be done—that we can expect this to happen—but I think people were expecting something to happen today, yet that deal did not happen. How can we have confidence that things will be done and a deal will be delivered when Arlene Foster can just pick up the phone and say, “No, we don’t like that”?

There are 111 areas covering a massive range of Scottish life: fishing, farming, law, data sharing, aircraft noise, pesticides, fracking, flooding, water quality, food, forestry, organs, blood safety—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out earlier—land use, railways, renewables and victims’ rights.

It is clear that those at the top of the profession in legal circles believe clause 11 is drafted without an understanding of devolution law. As Professor Alan Page put it:

“Not only does the Bill propose a massive increase in the power of UK Ministers to legislate in the devolved areas, it also proposes that their exercise should not be subject to any form of Scottish parliamentary oversight or control. What is proposed therefore is a law-making system fundamentally at odds with two of the key principles on which the devolution settlement is based.”

He was not the only one. Professor Rick Rawlings noted:

“The sooner clause 11 of the Withdrawal Bill is cast aside, the better. Constitutionally maladroit, it warps the dialogue about the role and place of the domestic market concept post-Brexit.”

On clause 11, even the Law Society of England and Wales has called for discussions about where the common frameworks will remain and their scrutiny. Professor Alan Page said that

“the real purpose of Clause 11 is not to secure legal continuity but to strip the devolved institutions of any bargaining power that they might have when it comes to the discussion of common frameworks and all the rest.”

We welcome the fact that there will be discussion over devolved areas of responsibility; consultation, however, does not satisfy the needs of devolution, and the UK Government should seek consent from the Scottish Government before exercising delegated powers in devolved areas, and the same goes for Wales and Northern Ireland. People’s jobs, businesses and farms, their environment at sea, in the air, above ground and below ground, virtual lives and literal lives, justice we depend on, and even the blood in our veins: tonight we must vote to uphold the rights of people across the nations and ensure that power is not taken from them.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I begin by echoing the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), because clause 11 is an unashamed power grab; it is undermining the devolution settlement, and it drives a coach and horses through devolution across these islands. In the time that I have to speak, I will talk about the impact it will have on farming, particularly in my Argyll and Bute community.

It is generally accepted that Scottish farmers, particularly farmers and crofters working the land on the west coast, face vastly different challenges from farmers in the rest of the UK. Not only do Scottish hill farmers toil with some of the poorest land, but they face additional challenges from climate, geography and topography, and so much so that 85% of Scottish agricultural land is classed “a less favoured area” compared with just 17% of English agricultural land.

Given that Scottish farmers face specific challenges, surely it stands to reason that they need a bespoke solution that recognises the vast differences that exist across these islands. It is understandable that the Scottish Government and the Scottish farming community are demanding confirmation that all powers relating to agriculture post-Brexit will automatically be passed to the relevant legislature—in this case, the Scottish Parliament. I fear that this Government are taking us down a dangerous road. They are deliberately proposing fundamentally to alter the basic principles of devolution.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the word “road”, which prompts me to intervene on him. When the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and I—and indeed the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—drive to the west, we see big signs telling us that the road was built with the assistance of the EU. One of the biggest questions in the minds of my constituents is: what will replace that funding stream? This relates to the ability of farmers and crofters to access their beasts.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is why my constituency, his constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber all voted to remain in the European Union. As things stand, all the powers connected to agriculture will go to London post-Brexit. It will be London that decides what happens.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is making a first-class contribution to the debate. I declare an interest as a crofter. Is it not the case that the UK Government have form on this? When they were given convergence uplift money in 2013, there was a distinct intention that 86% of those funds should come to Scotland, yet they have given us only 16%. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is sitting on the Front Bench, made sure that Scotland did not get what it should have done. We have been short-changed by Westminster. It is little surprise that we do not trust Westminster to look after us in this regard.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will touch on that issue in a moment.

Let us be clear that this is not just an SNP argument. The National Farmers Union of Scotland has made it absolutely clear that any move to impose what it describes as “DEFRA-centric policy” is completely unacceptable to Scotland. I agree wholeheartedly with the union when it states:

“The Scottish Government must retain the ability to manage, support and implement schemes, policies and regulations as it currently does”.

If the UK Government are serious about protecting Scottish agriculture, I suggest they listen to the president of the NFUS, Andrew McCornick, who has made it clear that the union’s priorities include securing friction-free trade, access to skilled labour and a support package specifically designed for Scotland. He was absolutely spot-on when he said that maintaining access to the single market and the customs union was essential for Scotland’s farmers. On today of all days, if a deal can be found for one part of the United Kingdom to remain in the single market, there can be no other reason than political pig-headedness that such a deal cannot be found for Scotland.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if immigration powers were to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, that would allow us to make provisions for agricultural workers? That was proposed by the Environment Secretary, who is on the Government Front Bench at the moment.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I could not have put that better myself. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

We have heard much today from the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) about trust. They said that we should trust the UK Government to do the right by the Scottish farming community, but why would the Scottish farming community trust this Government to do the right thing? This is a Government who shamelessly robbed the Scottish farming community of the convergence uplift, and I doubt that that community will ever trust them again. The Government have to recognise the hugely important part that the Scottish farming community plays, economically and socially, in our lives. It is a vital component of our rural economy. It keeps the land productive and, in many cases, it is members of that community who keep the lights on in the glens of Argyll and the west highlands. I fear that London and Whitehall do not understand that community.

In conclusion, Brexit is a huge challenge for the Scottish farming community. Without a deal on agriculture that does not return legislative competence from Brussels to the Scottish Parliament, Brexit poses an existential threat to Scotland’s farming communities and will be a disaster. Tonight is the first real test of whether the Scottish Conservatives, who are wrong on a whole host of issues, actually put Scotland’s interests first; or are they, as many suspect, simply the Conservative party on manoeuvres in Scotland? They know that, if they choose to vote with the Government tonight and let the Bill go unamended, the result will be catastrophic for Scottish farming. What comes first: their loyalty to the captain of a sinking ship or to the rural communities of Scotland? Be in absolutely no doubt that no serious person believes that lumping Scotland in with the rest of the UK on agriculture is a good thing. This is a litmus test for the Scottish Tories, and I look forward to joining them in the Lobby.

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

I rise to support the amendments in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and to oppose clause 11. I have sat here since 3 o’clock, and I have been to the toilet once, nearly equalling Mr Speaker’s record, so he is obviously having an influence on my ability to hold in my water.

As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I want to discuss my concerns about clause 11 and Scotland’s environmental laws. Since Scotland gained a devolved Parliament, the political conversation on the divergence of policies has in many cases become diametrically opposite to the policies here in Westminster. I have always believed that, if someone wants to change the world, they have to get busy in their own little corner. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have done and are doing just that, and they are backed by the people of Scotland in trying to come up with more policies to improve social wellbeing and social mobility. A better community means that a better community spirit can be established, but if the present Tory Government stand in the way of our targets, aims and aspirations, do not think for one minute that the Scottish people will take that lying down—they will not.

The Scottish Government have steadily improved their environmental policies, which have been praised by a variety of academics and recognised by various politicians from other countries, who have commented positively on Scotland’s aims and ambitions. During a trip by the Environmental Audit Committee to Washington earlier this year, the president of one of the universities that we visited could not speak highly enough of the Scottish Government and all their chemical policies, and I want the Labour party and the Conservative party to remember that. The Scottish Government have provided certainty of policy on environmental issues and that policy sits at the top of the tree. Investors like that. Investors who believe in corporate responsibility like that. Investors in people and businesses who see the positive social impact that good, sustainable policies deliver to all parts of the community like that. Expert commentators like that. Most importantly, our people—the Scottish people—like that, and it is the right thing to do. That is why it is so important that we as a country protect our carefully thought-out policies—our devolved policies.

I want to give some examples of comments about our policies that have been given to the Environmental Audit Committee. Professor Holgate, who is an expert on the health effects of poor air quality, said:

“Scotland is taking a lead in this area… Scotland has been able to… keep the relationships between the public, health and local authorities intact. In this country”—

England—

“they have drifted apart”.

He praised the Scottish Government’s approach to tackling poor air quality and their adoption of World Health Organisation guidelines on fine particulates into law—the first country in Europe to do so. He challenged England to raise the bar—I like that. Do we need to protect these policies? Yes, we do.

We simply must not get soil health wrong. Sir Peter Melchett and David Thompson attended our Committee. During their evidence, David Thompson said:

“The Scottish Government…have a statutory requirement to produce a land use strategy under their Climate Change Act, which is not the case for the rest of the country.”

Sir Peter Melchett said that the Scottish Government were looking at the science of soil protection 15 years ago and that the science is linking more closely in Scotland than he has

“ever seen happen in England.”

I like that. Sir Peter Melchett and David Thompson are educated, knowledgeable people. Do we need to protect that policy? Yes, we do.

I will now get a wee bit into the crux of the matter, the re-reservation of powers and the possible threat to Scotland’s environment. Emma Barton, the Royal Yachting Association’s planning and environmental manager, and Professor Carolyn Roberts, vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Sciences, both appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee. When I asked them about marine protection zones, Emma Barton said:

“As far as I am concerned we have had a…positive experience in Scotland… I don’t have any particular concerns…in Scotland.”

When I asked Professor Roberts about the possible post-Brexit danger that devolved Administrations would be forced to take things they do not want, such as genetically modified crops or fracking, her answer was yes. Again, I pressed her on whether these powers could be taken back, and she said, yes, of course they could.

The complexity of working out exactly what the devolved Administrations can and cannot do will mean that every legal decision they make in areas touched by European legislation will be open to challenge at UK level. Effectively, this could turn them into paper Parliaments whose decisions could be overturned by anyone with the resources to launch a case at the UK Supreme Court. The Scottish Government agree that common frameworks are needed to guide many legislative areas across the UK post-Brexit, but the frameworks need to be agreed, not imposed.

My last quote is from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was sitting in the Chamber earlier. He has said that he had his own “Damascus moment” on environmental issues, which I welcome, but he raised eyebrows at the EAC in November with his answers on devolved matters. He promised to clarify his position, which he has done by way of a letter to the Committee. Or has he? The letter said:

“In particular, we will explore with the devolved administrations whether they wish to take a different or similar approach. We have been clear throughout that we respect the devolution settlements, that we expect more powers to be devolved and that no decisions which the devolved administrations currently make will be taken from them.”

Consider that. I repeat it:

“no decisions which the devolved administrations currently make will be taken from them.”

Post-Brexit, will the Government honour the Environment Secretary’s statement and make the temporary position permanent?

Article 50

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, I hope that we can work to ensure that we do have a Northern Ireland Assembly and a Northern Ireland Executive in place, so that we are able to have that interlocutor in Northern Ireland as we go forward and as we take the views of Northern Ireland forward in the negotiations. It is in all our interests to work for that devolved Government not just for that reason, but because it is the right outcome and the right decision for Northern Ireland. In the absence of such a Government, we will continue to talk to the political parties within Northern Ireland and to take wider views, as we are doing, across the whole of the United Kingdom from businesses and others about their concerns for their interests within Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

For weeks, the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that she did not want the Scottish Parliament to vote in favour of having a referendum on independence. No one could have been left in any doubt as to what her position was on that matter, but given that the Scottish Parliament last night voted by a clear and unambiguous majority in favour of having a referendum on independence, my question is this: regardless of her personal preference, and recognising her commitment for constructive and respectful dialogue, will she now respect that democratic decision?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the Scottish Parliament was very clear when it came to consider that issue. As I understand it, there was a majority in favour of section 30, but I was very clear that now is not the time for a second independence referendum, or to be talking about that. Now is the time for the United Kingdom to come together and to focus on the historic decision that we have taken and the negotiations that we now have to ensure the right deal for the whole of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland.

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Benyon]

No, I will not give way.

The nature of regimes in a more dangerous world is what we need to consider today. Although we have reduced our arsenal of nuclear weapons by 50% in recent years—the Leader of the Opposition completely ignored the fact that we have reduced our arsenal so considerably—the number of states with nuclear weapons has increased and the number of tactical nuclear weapons in the world is now over 17,000.

On the question of cost, I would just state that all this—the £31 billion over 35 years, plus the contingency—translates to about 0.2% of total Government spending. That will be reduced if we take account of the advantage for the supply chain of developing this suite of replacement submarines.

I will finish by saying that we need to listen to our allies on this issue. We have an agreement with the French—the Lancaster House agreement—and we have a long-standing agreement with the United States. Our nuclear defence is networked into our other allies as well. We need to think about their response to what we are debating as much as about the future generations that we will protect through our decision tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said earlier, there exists in Scotland a broad consensus against Trident. Tonight, I expect 58 of Scotland’s 59 Members of Parliament—98% of Scottish MPs—to vote against the motion. In doing so, we will be reflecting a consensus that exists in Scotland, where the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, the SNP, the Labour party in Scotland, the Scottish Green party, the Scottish TUC, great swathes of Scottish civil society and Scotland’s faith communities are all opposed to having nuclear weapons foisted upon us. Indeed, just last week the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic bishops of Scotland publicly reaffirmed their opposition to the UK possessing these weapons.

[James Cartlidge]

The SNP’s policy is for Scotland to be independent. If Scotland no longer had a nuclear deterrent, what would be the SNP’s strategy to defend Scotland in the event on an existential threat to the United Kingdom as a whole?

[Brendan O’Hara]

As an independent sovereign nation, we would act as every other independent sovereign nation in the world acts. The idea that Scotland is somehow incapable of defending itself as a part of the NATO alliance is absolutely bewildering and, if I may say so, unbelievably patronising. Despite what those on the Tory Benches like to think, Scotland has spoken and Scotland does not want these weapons of mass destruction.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

We have heard an awful lot about job losses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Is that something that concerns him?

[Brendan O’Hara]

Job losses are a concern wherever they occur and whoever the Member is, but I can say that the SNP has never and will never advocate the closure of Faslane. As a conventional naval base, Faslane has a bright non-nuclear future as part of an independent Scotland and I look forward to representing it as such. In the decade since the Government gave over time to debate Trident, the world has changed almost beyond recognition. The threats emerging from this rapidly changing world should force us to re-examine everything we once took for granted. We have heard often this afternoon that the world is a far more dangerous place than ever before. Just as the threats we face are far more complex and nuanced, so our response should be too, but sadly the Government have singularly failed to address that today.

Rushing to arm ourselves with even bigger submarines carrying even more devastating nuclear weapons does not reflect the reality spelled out in last year’s SDSR. Just nine months ago, the SDSR laid out what the Government regarded as tier 1 threats facing the country. As defined by the Government, they were: international terrorism, cyber-attack, hybrid warfare and natural disaster. Nuclear attack by a foreign power was not regarded as a tier 1 threat, yet today we are told that we cannot sleep safely in our beds unless the green light is given to spend almost £200,000 million—as the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) tells us—on a renewal programme.

The world, and the threats we face, are changing, and the UK faces the problem of how to deal with this new world. The choices we make now will determine what we can do in the future, so let us be absolutely clear: as much as we would like to, we cannot do everything. This is about stark choices, and those choices have got an awful lot harder for the proponents of Trident since the Brexit vote and the prospect of our leaving the EU, especially given the recent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which states that the UK’s GDP will reduce by up to 3.5%, resulting in the infamous black hole in the public finances of up to £40 billion by 2020. Surely the House has to know what that means for defence procurement before we sign a blank cheque for Trident.

Surely we are entitled to ask, before sanctioning £200,000 million for nuclear weapons, what the effect will be for our conventional forces. Will the Secretary of State tell us where the axe will fall in order that we might secure Trident? Will the Type 26 frigates be delayed yet again and their number further reduced? Is the Apache helicopter programme at risk? Will the F-35 programme be scaled back? Or will the axe once again fall on our already hard-pressed service personnel? It is not outrageous for the House, which is being asked to write a blank cheque, to ask for a full analysis of the cost of Brexit and the effect that the contraction of the UK economy will have on defence procurement.

We are being asked to buy four submarines, whose unique capability, we are told, is that they cannot be detected by hostile forces and therefore can move freely and undisturbed. That might well be the case today—I am sure they can—but can we honestly say that in 16 years, after we have spent £200,000 million, that unique capability will still exist? Every day, highly paid, highly intelligent people go to work in laboratories across Russia, China and the USA with the express intention of making the big missile submarine detectable and therefore useless. In all probability, by the time these new boats come into service, they will be obsolete and as difficult to detect as a white-hulled cruise ship is today.

There is no moral, economic or military case for possession of these weapons, and I will join my 57 colleagues from Scotland in voting against the motion. Despite Scotland’s overwhelming rejection of Trident, however, sadly I expect the motion to carry and Scotland to find itself in the intolerable position of having weapons of mass destruction that we do not want foisted upon us by a Government we did not elect. It is an intolerable situation, and I question how much longer it can continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. Having set out the reason for the uncertainty of the future we face, I want in my remaining minutes to dispel some of the myths that are mentioned when nuclear weapons are debated. Nobody here believes that nuclear weapons will in any circumstances deter the sort of attacks—the awful attacks, as we all accept—that we have seen on the London underground or in Nice, for example. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are not meant to deal with that; we have conventional weapons, counter-terrorism specialists and so forth to deal with those terrorist outrages. Nuclear weapons are there to deal with the sort of inter-state actors we might see in Russia, China, North Korea or other rogue states that we cannot predict at the present time. That is what nuclear weapons are for—not for the situation articulated by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson).

[Brendan O’Hara]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we do not have a bottomless pit or an inexhaustible supply of money, which means that choices have to be made? We are being asked to write a blank cheque for Trident this evening. At what point does Trident become too much for the hon. Gentleman?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a legitimate point and we have to make a legitimate choice. I support the Government’s choice because in an uncertain world as we look forward, it is a price worth paying for the defence and security of our nation. The hon. Gentleman and I know each other, so I know he is reading this stuff in a document that says that if we make an assumption that this will use about 6% of the defence budget between 2031 and 2060, Trident will cost £71.4 billion. If we make the assumptions made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), we can get to £179 billion. If we make the assumptions that the hon. Gentleman makes, we can get to another figure. The figures are all in there, and I am saying yes, this is a cost worth paying and something worth doing because it provides security for our nation.

Let me now challenge the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). I have been reading the Scottish National party’s debate of a few years ago—in October 2012, I believe. Members of the Scottish Parliament resigned because of the ludicrous position into which the SNP had got itself. The Defence Secretary should make more of this point. The ludicrous situation is that the SNP is not prepared to accept British nuclear weapons, but it will accept the American nuclear umbrella in NATO. That is the sort of thing we get from SNP Members and they need to answer it. It is no wonder that some MSPs resigned when they realised that that policy was totally and utterly contradictory. Let them explain that to the Scottish people—that they will withdraw Trident, but want to remain part of NATO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who has made not only a passionate speech, but an extremely well informed and able speech that puts very well the case for maintaining our independent nuclear deterrent. It is striking that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should choose this debate as the first occasion on which to appear at the Dispatch Box as Prime Minister to reinforce her personal will and determination to stand up for this country, to stand up for global peace and security and to demonstrate her personal resolve to project the values that our country represents around the world.

It is also striking that her very first act as Prime Minister was to pay respect to Scotland and the Scottish Executive by visiting the First Minister at the end of last week. If I may, I would like to address the Scottish dimension to the debate. The SNP is clearly represented in this House by many sincere unilateralists. No one need doubt their sincerity, but I very much doubt whether their views are as representative of Scottish opinion as they claim.

A recent poll showed a majority in Scotland in favour of maintaining the nuclear deterrent. [Interruption.] SNP Members shake their heads, and they are entitled to do so—I would expect them to—but I put it to them that there are many reasons why the SNP is ascendant in Scottish politics, and I do not think that their defence policy is one of them. I think they would still be doing well in Scotland if they were in favour of maintaining the Trident nuclear deterrent. I do not think that the case of Trident renewal was uppermost in voters’ minds in Scotland at the time of the last general election or the Scottish election.

[Brendan O'Hara]

rose—

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I appreciate that it was in their manifesto, but what of the bit of hypocrisy highlighted so ably by the hon. Member for Gedling? On the one hand, they reject the whole notion of nuclear defence, yet they want an independent Scotland to join NATO, which is a nuclear alliance, and benefit from the shelter that other countries are prepared to provide them with as part of the nuclear umbrella.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Perhaps, given his in-depth knowledge of Scottish politics, the hon. Gentleman can explain my presence in the Chamber today as the Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, a constituency that includes both Faslane and Coulport. Perhaps he can explain why the people of Faslane, Coulport and the rest of Argyll and Bute chose me when I stood explicitly on an anti-Trident ticket, if it is such a terrible and divisive vote-loser.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I want to fit everyone in, and there are a great many SNP voices to be heard a little later. Long interventions mean that other Members do not have a chance to speak, and we do not want that to happen.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There is a good section of the report that is entitled “Why now?” because that was, I think, one of the sections of Tony Blair’s speech in this House. It is also important to read the part of the report about what would have happened if Britain had not stood alongside the United States. Sir John Chilcot’s view is that that would not have terminally damaged the special relationship, and I suspect that that view is probably correct.

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

As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said earlier, John Chilcot today confirmed the existence of a dirty deal between Tony Blair and President Bush to pursue regime change in Iraq months before the matter came to the Floor of this House. Given that, will the Prime Minister join me in demanding that Tony Blair apologise unreservedly to the families of the 179 UK service personnel killed and to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who also died? Will the Prime Minister also join me in asking Mr Blair to apologise to the British public, whose faith in the democratic process has been fatally undermined by this whole sorry affair?

[The Prime Minister]

I think Mr Blair is probably speaking while we are here, so let us wait and see what he says in response to the report and whether it measures up to the level of events.

Outcome of the EU Referendum

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Single-sentence questions.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

The overwhelming majority of my constituents and, indeed, of Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a democratic outrage if we were now to be stripped of our European citizenship?

ISIL in Syria

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I am bound to confess that I agreed with very little of what the Leader of the Opposition said in his contribution to this debate, but he was entirely right that whether to send British armed forces into action is possibly the most serious, solemn and morally challenging decision that Members of this House can be asked to make.

The principal questions that Members should consider are those of security, legality and utility. The first question we should ask ourselves is whether the security of this country is under threat. That is certainly the case. The terrorist organisation that dignifies itself by the title Islamic State, but which I am glad to see Members on both sides are now calling Daesh, represents, in the words of Security Council resolution 2249, an

“unprecedented threat to international peace and security”.

That is certainly proving to be the case in this country.

Daesh murderers have already beheaded our fellow citizens in front of TV cameras, and distributed those medieval scenes across the internet. Thirty of our fellow citizens were murdered on the beach at Sousse, and we have heard of seven plots disrupted by the security services. There can be no doubt about the threat that Daesh poses.

Many hon. Members will be concerned about issues of legality, but I believe that is properly addressed by resolution 2249, which calls on states to take “all necessary measures” to prevent terrorist attacks, and to eradicate the safe haven that Daesh has created in Iraq and Syria. After the experience of Iraq, it is hardly surprising that Members across the House are concerned about legality, but I do not believe that that issue arises in the current case. The international community clearly regards Daesh as such a unique threat to the peace of the world, that military action is not only justified, but positively encouraged.

On utility and whether British military action will make a difference, I believe that it will. Britain should not stand by while our strongest ally, the United States, and France, which has recently suffered so grievously, bear the greatest load to rid the world of this pernicious and evil organisation. As the Prime Minister rightly put it, we should not subcontract our security to our international partners. The Royal Air Force boasts some of the finest military pilots in the world. It possesses formidable weaponry, including the Brimstone missile, which is unique to the British armed forces and will make a considerable contribution to degrading the power of Daesh. Our allies are calling for us to join them.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that the Brimstone missile is unique to the Royal Air Force. Is it the case—I asked the Prime Minister this the other day—that the Saudi Arabian air force has been using the Brimstone missile in Syria since February this year?

[Mr Jones]

As far as I know—I stand to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman, although I do not know whether he is right—the Brimstone missile is unique to British military forces, and we have the finest pilots in the world flying those planes.

To those who say that British engagement in Syria will put this country at risk of retribution by terrorists, I say yes, that is probably right. However, that will not change the state of affairs that currently prevails. ISIL/Daesh does not recognise the border between Iraq and Syria, and it regards land on both sides of that border as part of its territory. We are already taking action against Daesh in Iraq, and therefore we are already at risk of retribution. The danger to our citizens is already great, but I do not believe that it will be increased one jot by the action that I hope this House will support. The risk is already there, and we should continue to adopt the vigilance that we are already displaying to keep our citizens safe at home.

I believe that the case for action is strong as is the legal basis for it, and Britain can, and will, make a difference in the struggle against Daesh in Syria. I shall therefore support the motion, and I urge other hon. Members to do likewise. It is entirely honourable for Members to go through either Lobby this evening, but if the outcome of that vote means that we commit ourselves to military action in Syria, every Member of the House should—and I believe will—give all necessary support to our brave armed personnel in Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee on producing this excellent and thoughtful report. I commend it to any hon. Member who has not had a chance to read it. I hope that the Prime Minister takes cognisance of the fact that the Committee reported last night that it was not convinced that the concerns contained in its report had been met.

Just three or four weeks ago, the Committee said that the

“extraordinary complexity of the situation on the ground”

meant that there were “few reliable counterparts”, and that

“There appeared to be little chance of a legitimate and functioning ally emerging from the chaos”

any time soon. Now, miraculously, we are expected to believe that some 70,000 “moderate” troops are ready to fight on our behalf.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Members on both sides of the House have rightly made much of the professionalism and dedication of our servicemen and women. Do they not have a right to know alongside whom they will be fighting in any conflict in which they are set to take part?

[Brendan O’Hara]

One can only conclude that the 70,000 figure is a convenient arithmetical creation that adds together a multitude of people from different cultures and factions and with widely differing ambitions for the future of Syria, and I agree that people should be told exactly who they are. I fear that the 70,000 claim will define this Prime Minister’s drive for military intervention in the middle east, just as the claim that we were only 45 minutes from attack defined a previous Prime Minister’s justification for earlier misadventures in the region.

[Crispin Blunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—and, given that he has been so kind about the Foreign Affairs Committee, the least that he deserves is another minute. May I draw his attention not only—obviously—to the Prime Minister’s statement, but to the work of Charles Lister, who is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Centre? In a blog on the Spectator site, he broke down the 75,000 figure with reasonable accuracy. The key issue, however, is the change that has taken place over the last month in Vienna.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I certainly commend the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, which is a first-class piece of work. It also said that any UK involvement in airstrikes was unlikely to constitute a war-winning intervention. Sir Simon Mayall told the Committee:

"This is not a war-winning air campaign, by any stretch of the imagination.”

Even the most enthusiastic cheerleader for UK airstrikes in Syria would have to agree that very few planes will actually be involved and that our contribution will be extremely small. At the same time, however, the Prime Minister was telling us that a major military plank of the argument for airstrikes was that we had a “unique contribution” to make. That “unique contribution” was the Brimstone missile. Indeed, he went on the record as saying that those missiles were “unique assets” that the RAF could contribute, and that he had been lobbied by our coalition partners to bring them to the theatre. As I pointed out to him, the Royal Saudi Air Force has been using Brimstone missiles since February this year.

Let us be honest, Mr Speaker. The UK Government’s desire to take part in the bombing of Syria is less a military contribution than a political statement. Since 2013, the Government have felt that they have been left on the sidelines, and have been itching for a piece of the action. As with so much of the UK’s thinking, this has more to do with how the UK will look to others than with our asking what good we can do. After decades of military intervention in the middle east, we do not have a success to show for it.

There are more than enough people dropping bombs on Syria. We do not have to add to the chaos, the misery and the inevitable casualties by doing so as well. Yes, Daesh is evil; yes, it must be defeated; and, yes, we have a contribution to make—but dropping bombs from 34,000 feet is not the way to do it. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let us not embark on another middle eastern misadventure. Let us go in with a credible plan to win the peace and secure the future in Syria.