Brendan O'Hara MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 20 March the Foreign Secretary said in relation to the conflict in Gaza: “There are atrocities on both sides”. —[ Official Report , 20 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 529.] On 24 March, I wrote to the Attorney General asking how and when His Majesty’s Government arrived at that determination. I further asked the Attorney General about the legal implications of the UK selling weapons to Israel directly or indirectly, and whether he believed it legal to supply those weapons when the Government had decreed that Israel was guilty of atrocity crime. On 8 April I received a letter from the Attorney General’s Office saying that he did not consider this to be his responsibility and that my letter had been passed to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It is now 13 May, seven weeks after I first wrote to the Attorney General, and I still have had no reply. This is not new, Madam Deputy Speaker. The record will show that I had to raise a similar point of order in November, when neither the FCDO nor the Attorney General’s Office responded to my letter about the Foreign Secretary’s interpretation of the genocide convention. Can you advise me on how I can get a reply to my questions, and how we as Back Benchers can have confidence that the Government will answer Members’ questions, even those that they wish had not been asked?

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me to veer ever so slightly from my promise to remain within the scope of the Bill in order to answer the hon. Lady’s question. I think I joined the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament when I was 16, before I joined the SNP. I have been a lifelong opponent of nuclear weapons. When I stood in my constituency in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2024, I made no bones about my position on nuclear weapons, and my constituents voted for me. She suggests that this is a massive issue, but it is not an issue for the people of Argyll, Bute and—now—South Lochaber. I would gently point out that my position is also the position of the Labour party in Scotland. I will conclude. The introduction of a regional immigration policy to reflect the needs of the circumstances at the time has worked in Australia, Canada and other parts of Europe, and there is no reason, other than a complete lack of political will, why that cannot happen here. We have heard a lot of quotations from the Migration Advisory Committee, and it would be remiss of me not to quote it myself. It has said that “the current migration system is not very effective in dealing with the particular problems remote communities experience… If these problems are to be addressed something more bespoke for these areas is needed.” It said that six years ago. Here we are, six years on, and while we have had a change of Government and a change of Secretary of State, we have seen absolutely no progress on this issue. Indeed, I dare say that what we have heard today is the Labour party backtracking on it. Allow me to finish by saying this: we need a bespoke immigration policy in Scotland. We have been done in by the insanity of Brexit. We are reeling from what has happened to us and the impact it is having, particularly on our rural communities. Everyone can see that, but there is intransigence on the part of the Government to recognise what is in front of their nose. I fear for them that the people of Scotland will recognise that when it comes to Scotland and the needs of Scotland, we do not figure particularly highly on this Government’s agenda.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have rarely in my life been more popular. I give way to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm).

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman, so allow me to do so: what amendment? What is he talking about? He has got no idea. To return to the point, the UK Government, having taken that away from the rural communities in Scotland, now have a responsibility to provide a solution. If they will not do it, for ideological reasons, the least they can do is allow the Scottish Government to do it, because we cannot go on this way. I am not surprised that all we have seen from Labour Members is them lining up to kick the Scottish Government and the SNP. That is politics; and, to be fair, they would be as well taking every opportunity to do it, because they will probably not last for long. By 2047, the proportion of working-age people in Scotland will be smaller than it is now, and the number of people of pensionable age is expected to rise. That is a huge threat, not just to our economy but to our ability to provide public services. Of course, there is no magic bullet, and nobody has said that about this Bill, but what it proposes is a hugely important tool in the toolkit.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress, because I said I would stick to the scope of the Bill. The final thing I will say to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) is that I do not think it is beyond the wit of everyone in this place to come to an equitable solution. I do not think that throwing up this smokescreen on Second Reading— [ Interruption. ] It is a smokescreen—is a useful thing to do. Let us give this Bill its Second Reading and take it into Committee, and let us dig in to that minutiae, because unless and until we do so, this House will continue to bat this away, and it is not a sustainable position. I do not need to remind the Secretary of State that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. We did that, I believe, because we recognised the enormous benefits that membership of the European Union brought to Scotland. One of the greatest of those benefits was freedom of movement—the ability for our people to move freely across Europe and for Europeans to come here. There was hardly a café, hotel, guest house or pub in Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber that did not have a young European—more often than not, several young Europeans—working in it. They filled essential seasonal gaps in the local labour market, allowing businesses to remain open and serve the needs of visiting tourists. That is all gone, and once thriving businesses are now struggling to find the staff they have depended on. Many hitherto successful seven-days-a-week businesses are now operating five, four or sometimes only three days a week, and not because the visitors have gone but because they simply cannot get the staff. The added bonus was that when these bright, young, ambitious Europeans came, they often decided to stay, or they would return later to raise a family and set up home in Scotland. Indeed, it was a cornerstone of Argyll and Bute council’s plan for economic regeneration. That whole plan was predicated on continuing to have access to EU nationals and being able to attract them into the area. Through no fault of our own, and despite voting overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, the insanity of Brexit has taken that away from them. The UK Government, having taken that away from them, now have a responsibility to provide a solution, particularly to help those rural areas suffering from depopulation.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) on the way in which he opened the debate. I thank him for laying out why it is essential that until Scotland is an independent nation, free to return to the security and stability of the European Union, the very least we need to secure our economic future is a Scottish visa. Such a visa would allow the Scottish Government to bring people to Scotland to work in the parts of the economy in which they are most needed—in tourism, hospitality, care, our fishing industry, or wherever those closest to the problem can identify a need. You will be delighted to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will not speak for long and will keep to the scope of the Bill. The Secretary of State will know that in my constituency of Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, and indeed across rural Scotland, we have a large ageing population—a population that is therefore largely non-economically active—and that is utterly unsustainable. There is a demographic crisis coming, because we are suffering from population decline. The Secretary of State knows that rural Scotland—Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber in particular—desperately needs people. It needs people to come and live, to open a business, to invest, to work, to put down roots, and hopefully to raise a family. Not only does he know that, but previous Secretaries of State have known that. Not only does the Home Secretary know that, but previous Home Secretaries have known that. But because of the anti-immigration hostile environment on the part of the previous Government and, I have to say, the complete moral cowardice on the part of this Government, it is an issue that they will not address. Indeed, it would appear—I hope I am wrong—that the Government are so craven that they will not even allow a vote on the Bill. I hope that I am wrong and that we can divide on the Bill. This is not a crisis that has just emerged and it has not taken anyone, least of all the Government, by surprise; this has been going on for years. We have talked about it time and again in this place, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Scotland, and indeed that work against Scotland’s best interests, no one in this place seems prepared to address it. More than five years have passed since February 2020, when I asked the then Tory Scotland Secretary about the introduction of a Scottish work visa. He replied that the Government had “no plans to devolve immigration. The new system will recognise the needs of all the nations and regions of the UK, including Scotland.” In September this year I asked the new Labour Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill)—the exact same question, only to be given an almost identical reply. She said: “I look forward to working with the Home Office and engaging with sectors on ensuring that immigration works for all parts of the UK.” —[ Official Report , 4 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 299.] So, five years apart, and a new Secretary of State and a new Government, but almost an identical answer. That is not change; that is continuity.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As long as we are, unfortunately, part of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Government will have a responsibility and a role to play. We should be allowing asylum seekers to work and contribute to the economy, because the current system is a complete nonsense. We should also be looking very closely at how we treat these vulnerable individuals. I do not think we should be taking any lectures from the previous Government or this Government on how we treat the most vulnerable people.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the ferries are such a catastrophe, would the hon. Gentleman care to explain why, in a constituency with probably more ferries than any other in the UK, I was re-elected in 2017, 2019 and 2024 with the largest SNP majority in Scotland? If the ferries are that bad, why do the people who use them vote SNP?

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, I would question the language about asylum seekers being a burden. I think asylum seekers are here in the main for good, honourable and honest reasons. I do not view them as a burden. I believe that the Scottish Government already take care of that, and yes, there will be cross-border co-operation until such time as we can have our own independent asylum policy. But again, I do not see that as being a great barrier that should stop a good idea from being further discussed. The Government are continuing what the previous Government did and are absolutely oblivious to the needs of rural Scotland. They will not do anything, because essentially it is not politically expedient for them so to do.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Co-operation with Devolved Governments · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, if the Government were serious about co-operating with the devolved Government, tomorrow’s Second Reading debate on devolving immigration policy to Scotland, which has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), would not be necessary. The Minister will recall that, in the run-up to the general election, Labour’s Deputy Leader in Scotland, Jackie Baillie, said that they would be open to talks on this issue and, of course, it would be unthinkable that she would have said such a thing just to gain short-term electoral advantage. Therefore, having waited a year, can the Minister tell us when he expects those talks to open?

• 24 Apr 2025 · London Sudan Conference · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Conflict in Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  The inhumanity and depravity that we witnessed on Tuesday defies belief, but it shows that after 17 months, Israel understands fully what impunity is, because Netanyahu shattered that fragile ceasefire, killing 400 civilians sheltering in tents—mostly babies and toddlers—knowing that there would be absolutely no consequence for his action. Can the Foreign Secretary think of any other conflict at any other point in history when the UK would have accepted one of its closest allies and military partners designating babies and toddlers as legitimate military targets?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Military Co-operation with Israel · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 17 Mar 2025 · G7 · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary is clearly a busy man, so I understand why we have not seen him since the Prime Minister announced a 40% cut to the overseas development budget on 25 February. Can I ask him now, then, whether the consequences of slashing overseas aid were discussed at the G7, and how he explained to our partners that withdrawing lifesaving aid to the poorest people on the planet, thereby making them even more dependent on Russia and China, would, in the long run, make us all safer and more secure?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary is on record as saying that an inclusive political process that protects Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities was his top priority, but these attacks on civilian and minority groups have never ceased, and they were increasingly frequent before this recent atrocity. How is that strategy of protecting religious and ethnic minorities being implemented on the ground? What protective measures have been put in place in the past three months to defend those minority groups from further violent attacks? How is that being assessed and monitored so that prevention can be put in place before they happen again?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Relations with the EU · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I was in Ukraine, where, following Trump’s betrayal, the need for European solidarity to defend our democracy has never been more evident. The unintended consequences of Brexit for our economy and our security are certainly very real. It is increasingly obvious that the UK cannot afford the luxury of splendid isolation. In the spirit of nothing being off the table, will the Minister’s Department start a discussion in government about the UK moving to customs union and single market membership? The closer and the quicker we align with our European partners, the safer we will all be.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  That a Labour Government, after all they said during their years in opposition, have decided to take essential life-saving overseas aid away from the poorest people on the planet is truly astonishing and utterly shameful. They know that removing £67 billion of overseas aid will have devastating consequences. It will mean that the world’s poorest children will go unvaccinated, millions of girls will go uneducated, and projects set up to help communities recover and protect themselves from climate change will come to an end. There is no running away from the fact that millions of people, mainly children, will die or have their lives permanently changed as a result of that decision. Nor can the Government escape from the fact that this was a premediated political decision taken by a Labour Prime Minister. That Prime Minister has tried shamefully to frame this debate as an either/or—we either spend the money on defence, or we spend it on overseas aid—but that is palpably not true. Indeed, it would be laughably disingenuous were it not so serious. If we are—and I agree we are—heading into uncharted waters for European security and defence, the Government need to rip up their self-imposed fiscal rules and have an honest conversation with the public about what must be done. Explain to the public that with an emboldened Putin, and with America no longer a trustworthy or reliable ally, we in Europe have to look after and fend for ourselves, and that is going to mean tough choices. This is morally reprehensible. The Government know that cutting overseas aid will make us less secure. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, if they need convincing, they should read the Prime Minister’s speech from 13 July 2021, when he laid it out line by line. It was an excellent speech—Labour Members should read it—but I just wish he had meant it. Absolutely no one believes that we can make ourselves safer and more secure by making the world’s poorest even poorer. When the Prime Minister announced the decision to increase defence spending by cutting overseas aid, he attempted to justify it, saying that it could only be funded “through hard choices” and that this was a “difficult and painful decision” for him. Well, it is not nearly as painful or as difficult as it will be for millions of impoverished children who do not know where their next meal is coming from, for girls who do not know when they will next be able to go to school, or for children who wonder why their siblings are dying of preventable diseases because they have not been vaccinated, or where their father has gone when he has gone to Europe to try to find work. Prime Minister, save me your crocodile tears about this being a “difficult decision”. This was not a difficult decision; this was an easy option.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  No one is surprised that as soon as the world’s attention shifted from Gaza, Israel reimposed its siege, preventing the entry of all humanitarian aid. The Minister knows the impact that this will have on the beleaguered civilian population, who are already suffering from disease, starvation and an absence of healthcare. After 17 months in which Israel has been given carte blanche, none of us—least of all Netanyahu—expects there to be any meaningful consequences from Israel’s actions, but does the Minister consider what is happening in Gaza to be collective punishment? If she does not, what would she call it?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Hong Kong Democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  Intimidating pro-democracy Hongkongers living in the UK, placing them on a wanted list and circulating reward notices to their neighbours is simply unforgiveable. I am sure that the Minister will agree that no trade deal is worth subverting our values and allowing the rights of our people to be abused in such an appalling fashion. What discussions has his Department had directly with the Chinese ambassador? What has the ambassador been told the consequences will be for those found to be responsible? What is the status of the current investigation, or does everybody just accept that this matter is now closed?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson). Of course we welcome the Bill, and the Government can be assured that we will do whatever we can to assist its progress through the House, but as we have heard from many hon. Members, the fact that in 2025 the United Kingdom is still having to introduce legislation to remove anti-Catholic legislation from the statute book is pretty embarrassing. That people of the Roman Catholic faith are still explicitly legally barred from holding the position of Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland—a post that can be held by people of all other faiths and those with no religious belief—is nonsense. I do not blame the Government or the Minister one iota. I am quite sure that they were as surprised as anybody when, after having appointed Lady Elish Angiolini to the office of Lord High Commissioner, one of their lawyers appeared, blowing the cobwebs off the 1829 Act, to reveal the flaw in their plan. That does not take away from the fact that it is ridiculous that two centuries after the Act was passed, the Government are still having to introduce these narrowly focused Bills to correct historical wrongs as and when they appear. While I can understand that the Government were caught on the hop with regard to this particular appointment, I share the frustrations of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who wondered whether it would not be better to bundle all this legislation together and remove all existing anti-Catholic discrimination, rather than just doing it piecemeal as and when circumstances arise. That may well not have been possible on this occasion, given the time constraints of Lady Elish’s appointment, and so the Government are having to get around the problem in this fashion, but I hope that we never again find ourselves in this situation and that the Government will find time to bring forward legislation that, once and for all, removes all traces of anti-Catholic discrimination from UK law. Were the Minister to approach his boss with such a proposal, I suspect that he would receive a fair hearing. As far back as 2002, an aspiring young barrister—now the Prime Minister—writing in The Guardian , described the UK’s remaining anti-Catholic laws as “deeply offensive” and an offence to multicultural Britain. Should such a Bill be introduced, I would like to think that it would pass through this House quickly and without too much opposition. It is important to point out that this situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the Church of Scotland, which, to its enormous credit, has viewed the appointment of Lady Elish to the post of Lord High Commissioner as completely uncontroversial. The Rev. Fiona Smith, principal clerk of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, has said: “We are honoured that His Majesty has appointed Lady Elish Angiolini as Lord High Commissioner…We very much look forward to welcoming her to the General Assembly.” As others have mentioned, that is a remarkable transformation, because not so long ago the idea of a Catholic female, particularly one of Irish descent, being the sovereign’s official representative in the Church of Scotland would have been unthinkable to many in this Kirk. Although I do not think that the Minister was there personally, I am sure he will remember that it was only in 1923 that the infamous report entitled “The Menace of the Irish Race to our Scottish Nationality” was presented to the General Assembly, so the appointment of a Catholic woman as Lord High Commissioner being welcomed by the Church of Scotland is a wonderful example of how far Scotland as a nation has travelled in recent decades. As the Minister has said, and as others have repeated, it should come as no surprise to any of us that if there was a trail to blaze, Elish Angiolini was the person who was going to blaze it. Born Elish Frances McPhilomy in Glasgow and educated at Notre Dame high school and the University of Strathclyde, she became one of Scotland’s most prominent lawyers, serving as Solicitor General, as we have heard, before becoming Lord Advocate. She served under both Labour and SNP Governments at Holyrood between 2006 and 2011, before being appointed to St Hugh’s College the following year. Lady Elish remained prominent in public life; as we have heard, she chaired several Government inquiries into deaths in police custody and the investigation and prosecution of rape. In 2020 she published a report on her review of the handling of complaints against Police Scotland, before becoming chair of the board of trustees at Reprieve, a charity made up of lawyers, investigators and campaigners fighting for justice for people facing human rights abuses, often at the hands of powerful Governments. As if to cement her trailblazing reputation, in October 2023 Lady Elish became the first woman to be sworn in as the new Lord Clerk Register of Scotland—one of the oldest remaining great offices of state, with origins going back to the 13th century. Given the circumstances, I do not think that there could be a more appropriate appointment to the role of Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland than that of Elish Angiolini, but, as I have said, it is deeply regrettable that because of her religious beliefs, we have had to pass a Bill in this House to allow it to happen. Finally, given that this Bill is welcome but long overdue, I am delighted to inform the Government that should Lady Elish decide not to take up the role for any reason whatsoever, from this day on I, too, am available for selection.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Gaza: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  It is essential that the editorial independence of the BBC is protected at home and abroad. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether she or anyone in her Department had contact, formally or informally, with the Israeli embassy about the documentary before it was pulled from iPlayer? And will she say when contact was first made between her and the BBC, between the programme being airing and then being pulled from iPlayer?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  Over the weekend, President Trump inserted himself into the debate on the future of Gaza and its people by saying, “You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing.” Is it the Government’s view that he was talking about the forced displacement or ethnic cleansing of almost 2 million Palestinians from their land? If that is not the Government’s understanding of what he meant, what exactly is their interpretation of what President Trump said?