Brendan O'Hara MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. The Prime Minister has repeatedly told this House that it is not for him or his Government to determine what is and is not a genocide. That position is no longer tenable, because at the High Court recently, the Prime Minister instructed his lawyers to argue that in Gaza,“no genocide has occurred or is occurring”.The truth is that his Government have made a determination; the question is whether he has the courage of his convictions. Will he repeat from the Dispatch Box what he told his lawyers to argue in the High Court—that he believes that no genocide has occurred or is occurring in Gaza?

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 13 May 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 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?

• 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—

• 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?

• 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?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The celebrations in Gaza that welcomed the ceasefire were matched only by the relief of the hostages’ families that their loved ones were finally coming home. In the hours that followed, however, scores of Palestinian civilians were killed, and the Israeli Government declared that they will not meet today to ratify this deal in what is an unspeakably cruel blow to those seeking peace and the return of the hostages. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) have both asked this question, but in the absence of a reply, I will ask it again: if Israel does not agree this deal and continues to prosecute this conflict as it has to date, what will the consequences be for Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Government?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, my constituent Jordan Maclachlan from Ardnamurchan was killed while serving as a medic in Ukraine. Jordan volunteered to go to Ukraine at the start of the war, and his family have said that by serving on the frontline, “Jordan always believed that he was making a difference”. Will the Leader of the House join me, not just in sending our deepest condolences to Jordan’s heartbroken family and friends, but in saying that we in this House also believe that in his work as a Ukrainian army medic, Jordan did make a difference? Does she also agree that it is now incumbent on all of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law that we keep Jordan’s memory alive by ensuring that aggressors such as Putin will not win?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Northern Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  Exactly a year ago, Lord Cameron, when talking about the situation in northern Gaza, told the Foreign Affairs Committee that “the conflict is now effectively over there”. Unfortunately, no one seems to have told Tel Aviv, because babies are still freezing to death and the last hospital has been destroyed. In that year, while the faces on the Government Benches might have changed, the UK’s complicity in the mass killing of Palestinians remains as it has been. Given that nothing has changed, does the Minister genuinely believe that in another year from now he will be able to say that continuing to arm the IDF was moral and legal?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I want to add my voice and the SNP’s to the millions of people across these islands who are demanding an immediate ceasefire, the release of all the hostages, an end to all UK arms sales to Israel and for the UK Government to officially recognise the state of Palestine. Since the atrocities of 7 October, the civilian population of Gaza has been subjected to the most brutal onslaught imaginable. Every day, 10 children lose at least one of their limbs, making this tiny strip of land home to the largest population of child amputees in history—something that does not happen by accident.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I will not; I apologise. About four fifths of those killed were killed while inside residential buildings. The Minister knows that residential buildings are not legitimate targets under international law, but we all know that so much of what has happened since October 2023 has been a violation of international law. Indeed, Lord Cameron let slip at the Foreign Affairs Committee that the UK has long known that Netanyahu was imposing collective punishment against the population by controlling their water supply. We had hoped that things would be different with a change of Government, but that has not been the case. By choosing to deny the evidence of their own eyes in order to supply Netanyahu with the weapons he needs, the UK is complicit and is giving Netanyahu and his Government the degree of international respectability that he desperately craves. This is a shameful episode in UK foreign policy—one that will long be remembered and will not be without consequence. When it comes to international law, everyone can see the blatant double standards. In September, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—Minister of State at the Foreign Office—told this House: “intentionally directing attacks at civilian objects is a war crime.” —[ Official Report , 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 29.] She said that attacks that threaten power, heating and water and impact the safety and livelihoods of millions of Ukrainians are a war crime. She was absolutely right. But why are this Government and the previous one able to call out Putin’s war crimes the moment they happen but seem utterly incapable of doing so when the perpetrator is Netanyahu and the victims are Palestinians? Our system of international law has always been fragile, but operating with such clear double standards in its application and enforcement is a sure-fire way of ensuring its complete destruction. These petitions, these mass demonstrations that we have seen, tell me that this Government are miles behind the people. People want to find a solution in which all arms to Israel are suspended and the Palestinian state is recognised. People feel so badly let down by this Government’s defence of international law, because there seems to be very little difference between the situation now and the situation under the last Government; what change we have seen has been superficial and cosmetic. That was not unexpected, but perhaps we dared to hope that they would be better than the last lot. But there are voices in this place, many of whom we will hear today, that are loud and persistent in continuing to speak up for international law—for justice, for accountability and for peace. Those people in this House will continue to shine a light where too many people do not want it to be shone. We will keep doing it not just for the Palestinians but whenever we see the powerful and the privileged abusing the human rights of the powerless, and wilfully ignoring international law.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  Today my thoughts are with Bashar Helmi and Mounzer Darsani and their families, and with all the other Syrian refugees who escaped Assad’s brutality and resettled on the Isle of Bute. Their hope, and the hope of all the people of Syria, will be that Syrians are now able to secure the peaceful future that they want, rather than Syria becoming a battlefield in another’s proxy war. How would the Foreign Secretary explain and legally justify the fact that the Syrians whom he mentioned, who were on the street cheering the demise of Assad, having waited five decades to be free of him, were, on day one, on the receiving end of a massive Israeli airstrike?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Detained British Nationals Abroad · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, wish to thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate. It is heartening to see that finally, the plight of arbitrarily detained UK nationals has been given long-overdue attention. For transparency, I put on record that I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs, which is brilliantly chaired by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who I know well from my days on the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is ably supported by Baroness Kennedy and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca). The APPG gives the families of those held abroad a voice and an opportunity to tell their story directly to Members of both Houses. Although people’s stories differ markedly in the circumstances of their detention, there is a striking similarity in how they feel about how they have been treated, and about being let down by successive United Kingdom Governments. Following the APPG’s inaugural meeting, we launched an inquiry on why that perception exists among those who are or have been arbitrarily detained and their families, giving them a voice that they have hitherto simply not had. I put on record my sincere thanks to Emily Foale of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, which provides the APPG’s secretariat and has been the driving force behind our inquiry. I urge all Members and Ministers to read the report when it is published. At our first evidence session, we heard from Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien, and his lawyer Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC, as well as from Ambassador James Cunningham, the former US consul general to Hong Kong. I know that they will be listening to today’s debate and will be extremely grateful to every single Member who raises Jimmy’s case this afternoon. Our second evidence session, held last week, was devoted to the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the British Egyptian dual national who has spent most of the last decade in an Egyptian prison for his writings on democracy and human rights. Alaa became a British national in 2021 through his mother, who was born in London. However, the Egyptian authorities have refused to recognise his UK nationality and have therefore denied him the UK consular access to which he is absolutely entitled. Alaa was due to finish his latest five-year sentence on 29 September, but in an unprecedented twist and a clear violation of both international and Egyptian domestic law, the authorities in Cairo refused to release him, declaring that the two-and-a-bit years that he spent in pre-trial detention would not count towards his sentence, and that he will be kept in prison until 2027. In protest, as we have heard, his 68-year-old mother, Laila Soueif, began a hunger strike. Today marks the 67th day of her hunger strike. I am delighted that Laila’s daughter and Alaa’s cousin Omar are in the Gallery. Such is their determination that Laila and Omar attended our second inquiry session last week to give their account of what is happening to Alaa. They feel that he has been let down by successive British Governments. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has secured an Adjournment debate on this topic today, and I am sure that he will build a formidable case for the UK Government doing much more to secure Alaa’s release. Rather than making an identical contribution to the hon. Gentleman’s, I will use my time to share some of what Alaa’s mother and cousin said to our inquiry last week. As I have said, one of the biggest blows to the family was Egypt’s decision not to release Alaa when his sentence was spent. When I asked the family how they thought the UK Government had reacted, Alaa’s mother said: “I got the impression that they hadn’t registered the fact that Alaa had actually finished his sentence, even though I made sure to notify the British Government two months before...it was as if they hadn’t actually registered the significance of this date.” Alaa’s cousin Omar added: “On July the 8th, I sent an email congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his appointment...and then saying the fear now was that the Egyptian Government wasn’t going to release him”. He continued: “Then, on the 25th of September, the Foreign Secretary met with the Egyptian Foreign Secretary for the first time publicly, and there was a picture of them smiling together... four days before the release date on 29th of September.” It really is not a good look for the Foreign Secretary to have posed for photographs with his Egyptian counterpart four days before a UK national—a human rights activist—was due to be released from prison, and after being warned that moves were afoot to detain him illegally. Alaa’s mother says, “we warned them”. She said: “We did warn them that it might happen, when we warned them that this date was coming up”. When asked about Alaa’s reaction to all this, she said: “He is disappointed very much by the behaviour of the British Government. You sort of expect the Egyptian government to do atrocious things. The fact that the British Government swallows them is not good.” Much of the family’s criticism of successive UK Governments relates to the way that the same approach is taken time and again, regardless of who is in office. As Laila said, “Four successive UK Prime Ministers, including Keir Starmer, have called for Alaa’s release, but none have taken any action beyond ‘raising the case’.” She is absolutely right; that is a very valid point. The impression, rightly or wrongly, is that awkward human rights conversations are had, and there is much shuffling of feet and a few embarrassed platitudes are exchanged, before the discussion on trade takes place. One has to wonder how far that observation is from reality. What the families want—not just Alaa’s family, but all the families we have spoken to—is a “whole government” approach, not just to securing Alaa’s release, but to ensuring that if something like this happens again, any regime arbitrarily detaining a UK national will understand that there will be serious consequences. They want the UK to send a clear signal that normal bilateral relationships will not apply. We have to make those relationships a lot more difficult, and be clear that there are certain things that the UK Government can do but will not do, and can give but will not give, because of the regime’s behaviour. In the case of Egypt, that “whole government” approach would include changing the travel advice, and warning UK nationals travelling to Egypt that consular assistance cannot be guaranteed if a citizen is arrested. As former British diplomat James Lynch told our inquiry last week, “The US Embassy has on its advice, a warning that it may have a limited ability to provide consular services in case of arrest or detention.” More than 100 Members of both Houses wrote to the Government to suggest that they do the same, because tourism from the United Kingdom makes up 1% of Egyptian GDP. The Egyptians look closely at FCDO travel advice, and they would certainly take notice of UK travel advice if it changed to be in line with what the Americans have done. As we have heard many times this afternoon, and as we have heard from the families, the UK has leverage, but unlike other countries, it is reluctant or unwilling to use it to secure the release of arbitrarily detained nationals. If the UK is to be taken seriously in this arena, it will have to use leverage and adopt a “whole government” approach, which includes trade. People in Cairo believe that there is an Egypt-UK trade summit in the pipeline. The UK trade envoy recently visited Egypt, and there was a significant trade delegation from Egypt to the UK in September, which included the Ministers for finance and trade, as well as the deputy governor of the central bank. Was Alaa’s case raise? I strongly suspect not, but it could and should have been. Was the Egyptian ambassador summoned by the FCDO when Alaa’s release date was changed? He should have been, but I strongly suspect that he was not. In short, Alaa and his family feel badly let down by this and previous UK Governments. In opposition, the now Government said all the right things, but when in power, they have proven to be just as ineffective as the last Government. I have no doubt that the Minister and the Foreign Secretary are sincere in what they have said, so that tells me that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. That system might work for Government, but it does not work for people in their hour of greatest need. That has to change. I give the last word to Alaa’s mother Laila, who told our inquiry: “If the government thinks it’s risking problems with Egypt by pushing to let Alaa out, it is risking the same problems in a different way by not pushing. We are going to do our best to embarrass this government and to embarrass British companies who are investing in Egypt if Alaa is not let out. I am sorry to say this, but if things go as far as me collapsing and dying, it is embarrassing universally. The best-case scenario for them is to get this resolved any way they can.” I sincerely hope that the Minister takes note.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. We in the Scottish National party also welcome the ceasefire in Lebanon. Now that arrest warrants have been issued for his allies—Netanyahu and Gallant—the Prime Minister’s determination to supply Israel with the weapons it requires to carry out its atrocities in Gaza, which has always been morally repugnant, is now completely untenable. These warrants present him with a perfectly valid legal avenue by which he can end the UK’s complicity in this slaughter, so will he do that, or will the Prime Minister continue to choose to license F-35 components to a regime that is led by a man now wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity?