Brendan O'Hara MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, the changes of duty will come into place in September. He will be aware of the feelings of Members across this House and their opposition to the changes. The Department for Transport has the power to suspend the change; it does not have to take place. Will the Minister take the opportunity to suspend the change to allow meaningful negotiations to take place, rather than bulldozing the change through?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate and for how he opened it. With 23 inhabited islands, innumerable uninhabited islands and an aggregated coastline longer than that of France, my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency has 22 coastguard stations—more, I believe, than any other constituency in the UK. On behalf of everyone in the House, I want to say a sincere thank you to those dedicated, highly skilled and incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives at sea working out of Kilchoan, Kames, Salen, Coll, Tiree, Tobermory, Craignure, the Ross of Mull, Colonsay, Jura, Port Charlotte, Port Ellen, Appin, Oban, Crinan, Tarbert, Gigha, Campbeltown, Inveraray, Rothesay, Dunoon and Helensburgh. Across my vast but sparsely populated constituency, many of those coastguard stations are already understaffed. They have been struggling to recruit volunteers as it is, because of the low availability of suitable candidates. The MCA’s plan to strip these vital volunteers of their pittance of a remuneration will be another huge stumbling block to both the recruiting and retaining of coastguard rescue officers in these rural areas. I add my voice to those of the growing number of people not just protesting against the MCA’s decision but calling on the UK Government to become directly involved in the dispute and to use their influence to force the decision to be paused, to allow for meaningful consultation and discussion to take place, so that a fair and equitable solution can be found. Whether they like it or not, the UK Government have a hugely important role to play. Although the decision has been taken by the MCA, the MCA is answerable to the Department for Transport and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State. Should the Government not intervene and pause the MCA’s plan to cut the remuneration and allow meaningful discussion to take place, they will have to accept that serious consequences will inevitably follow—not just for morale or recruitment and retention, but for public safety.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Russian Shadow Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I, too, pay credit to the Royal Marines on a job well done, and welcome anything that helps our allies in Ukraine fighting for their freedom. Of course, decisive action against the Russian shadow fleet could and should have been taken much earlier. I do not think that I am being overly cynical in suggesting that there may be a link between the Prime Minister finally sanctioning this operation and the disintegration that we witnessed at the MOD last week. Given that disintegration was entirely due to the failure of the Treasury to adequately fund our conventional forces, does the Secretary of State share my fear that the seizing of unarmed merchant shipping could soon become the limit of the Royal Navy’s surface capability?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Just when the High North and the Arctic is emerging as one of the world’s most important strategic hotspots, we have witnessed a major UK Government Department disintegrate before our eyes, with the Secretary of State—because of the parsimony of the Treasury—resigning, and taking a junior Minister, the Armed Forces Minister, with him. Why does the Minister think the Prime Minister can convince our NATO allies that he is capable of defending the strategically important Greenland-Iceland-UK gap when he cannot even convince his colleagues that he can?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  The release of the Epstein files has shone a light where so many people did not want a light to be shone. Even with millions of documents still to be released, it is abundantly clear that for decades, the rich, the politically powerful and the well-connected have colluded to cover up their utterly appalling behaviours. That light which is now being shone does not just illuminate those who are personally responsible for their behaviour; it reveals those who knew what was happening, who enabled it and who chose to turn a blind eye. The people of this country are rightly furious. That is why I made the point yesterday, and will make it again today, on the Humble Address on the release of the Peter Mandelson files that with trust in the Government at an all-time low, they only have one chance to come clean about everything they know and they hold pertaining, in this case, to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to that post. Of course, unlike the Mandelson files which this House demanded be released, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor did not happen on the current Government’s watch. But Mr Mandelson leaves a long trail, and there may well be information which relates directly to him and which will cause serious embarrassment to many senior Labour party figures who were in power at the time. Let us not forget that the author Andrew Lownie explains in great detail in his book, “Entitled” about how it was former Trade Secretary Peter Mandelson who assisted Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in landing the role of UK special representative, seemingly against the advice of Mr Mountbatten’s brother, the then Prince Charles. Let me repeat my warning from yesterday that these files must be released and must be released in full, because any attempt to sanitise what is in them and to save face for any Government Ministers, past or present, could have serious long-term consequences for our democracy. That is also the very least that the victims and survivors deserve. We know that there are serious questions about the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as trade envoy back in 2001 that need answers. They include: whose idea was it? Who vetted him? Was he vetted at all? What role did Peter Mandelson play in making that appointment happen? What in his previous life made him uniquely suitable for the position of UK trade envoy? What warnings were given before and during his stint as trade envoy about his character and behaviour? Who was he responsible to while serving as trade envoy? Who scrutinised his behaviour and spending? What warnings were given during his time as trade envoy and how were those warnings handled? In a normal, functioning democracy, we would not have had to wait until Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had been stripped of his titles and evicted from his royal house, and was facing removal from the line of succession, before being able to discuss this issue. There have been serious concerns about Mr Mountbatten-Windsor for decades, many of them relating to his time as trade envoy. There are reports of him requesting that the public purse cover the cost of his massage services. When one understandably angry and unhappy civil servant complained, he was promptly overruled by his bosses. That now retired civil servant commented recently: “I can’t say it would have stopped him, but we should have flagged that something was wrong.” Of course something was wrong, but what difference would it have made to us in this House? As Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was a member of the royal family at that time, we were not allowed to question or examine what he was doing as a special trade envoy. It was not just civil servants who found getting information on Mr Mountbatten-Windsor all but impossible. The author Andrew Lownie has reported that he has had multiple freedom of information requests rejected, including on the grounds that it would be too time-consuming for Departments to go through the volume of information. One rejection actually said that looking at just one year of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s time as trade envoy would mean going through 1,927 digital files, each containing multiple pieces of information. Yet until Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s status changed, we in this House were not allowed to discuss that.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  The answer is quite simple: nobody can be above the law. Everybody has to be equal in the eyes of the law. As the great Paul Flynn said, we have to remove the bandages from our mouths in this place, and I will return to that point. Fundamentally, regardless of rank or privilege, nobody should be above the law. Many people will be embarrassed by what has happened, not least, as we have heard, the now leader of the Liberal Democrats, who, as Under-Secretary for Business, Innovation and Skills, and, I presume, with his fingers firmly crossed behind his back, was forced to stoutly defend the then Prince Andrew. He said: “I…believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job”. —[ Official Report , 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649.] He called him a “long-standing success” and said he had been great for British business, but what else could he have said as a Government Minister? We are not allowed to speak the truth about certain individuals in this place. Within three months of the right hon. Member making those comments, Mr Mountbatten-Windsor had resigned in disgrace because of his continued relationship with the convicted paedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. It was not just Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s relationship with Epstein that caused concern. In February 2011, the Minister attempted to raise a question about the special representative role and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s links to a notorious convicted Libyan arms smuggler, only to be told by the then Speaker that “references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful”. —[ Official Report , 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.] These archaic rules make a mockery of our democracy. The situation we face now was always going to occur, particularly as the royal family can and do both have a constitutional role and involve themselves in the political realm.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Greenland. President Trump’s threat to annex Greenland either “the easy way” or “the hard way” is pushing Europe to the verge of one of the biggest political and security crises we have faced in decades. Now, his threat to impose punitive tariffs on those opposing his illegal annexation means that the President of our closest ally is using economic and military threats against the UK and other European nations simply for defending sovereignty, self-determination and international law. On what basis do this Government view this particular President as being a trustworthy and reliable ally?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State talks about supporting economic growth in Scotland. Perhaps he should check in with the local authorities across the highlands and islands, which, combined, have received absolutely nothing from the UK Government’s local growth fund. Life is tough enough for our rural communities, and the decision to exclude them from the fund will only make things more difficult. Will the Secretary of State listen to the advice of the leader of Argyll and Bute Council, Councillor Jim Lynch, who desperately wants him to rethink this allocation?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts, for this important debate on religious minority persecution in Myanmar. As I have done so often over the years, I sincerely thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the driving force behind the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, for securing this debate and ensuring that people who have been persecuted for professing their beliefs or—just as importantly—those exercising their human rights not to believe or practise a faith, wherever they are in the world, are not forgotten about. With the world on a seemingly endless cycle, stumbling from crisis to disaster and back again, it would be all too easy to forget or choose to ignore issues such as the persecution of religious minorities, but it is vital that we do not do so or allow others to forget or choose to ignore such a fundamental human rights issue. No one would wish us to forget or ignore this issue more than the military regime in Myanmar, where for decades a deliberate policy of religious and ethnic cleansing has been pursued as they seek to Burmanise the country. Burmanisation is the belief that true Myanmar citizens are both Burman and, of course, Buddhist. That is why the citizenship law was introduced in 1982 to strip Rohingya Muslims of their citizenship, rendering many of them effectively stateless and making them foreigners in their own land. That hideous, racist, sectarian policy excluded minorities from the political process and limited the social and economic development of ethnic minority communities by curtailing their cultural and religious freedoms. The attempt to erase the identity of anyone who is not both Burman and Buddhist has resulted in the most appalling oppression of religious minority communities. Notably, as we have heard, Rohingya Muslims and Christians have been the primary victims of this ethno-religious Burmese nationalism. As we just heard, this year the charity Open Doors declared that Myanmar has risen up its world watch list rankings, and is now deemed the 13th most dangerous place in the world in which to be a Christian. Since 2021, Open Doors has recorded a steep rise in murders, destruction of places of worship and forced displacement, and has now put Myanmar in the extreme category for religious persecution. State-sponsored religious persecution—as we have heard from every speaker in this debate—has caused Rohingya Muslims to flee, predominantly over the border to refugee camps in Bangladesh, where they are having to endure some of the worst living conditions on the planet, because they are fleeing what the United Nations has described as an “ongoing genocide” at the hands of the Myanmar military. So fearful are they of returning that appalling squalor and overcrowded camps are deemed preferable to the fate that would await them should they return home. Displacement, murder, repression and widespread endemic gender-based sexual violence are every bit as real a threat there today as they were in 2017, when over 1 million Rohingya Muslims fled to Bangladesh. It is worth remembering that in 2019, the United Nations described gender-based sexual violence as the hallmark of the Burmese military’s operations in Myanmar. The Rohingya are stuck in what has been described as a hell on earth. For the benefit of Members who were not here the last time we debated Myanmar and the situation in Cox’s Bazar and Bangladesh, I will repeat what the journalist and documentary filmmaker Simon Reeve said after he visited one of those camps. He said it was “like nothing I have seen anywhere on Planet Earth. This speaks of a Biblical exodus of an entire people terrorised into fleeing.” Yet for those people, living in that unimaginable horror is deemed preferable and safer than returning home. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) is right that the situation for Rohingya Muslims living in the camps is only getting worse. Minister, that is in no small part due to the shameful decision by this Government to ape the previous Government and slash UK overseas aid, leaving Bangladesh—already one of the poorest countries in the world—to shoulder a massively disproportionate share of the costs of looking after more than 1 million refugees. When helpless, homeless refugees are dumped on impoverished countries, it leads to the crisis in Bangladesh that was alluded to earlier. We have a moral responsibility to do something about that. As much as the Rohingya may wish to return home in a safe and dignified manner, such a return is not possible while the military in Myanmar is pursuing its reign of terror. The stark truth is that the Rohingya will be able to return home only when a Government committed to human rights, religious freedom and the rule of law are established. That prospect is unfortunately a long way off, because Myanmar, as we have heard so often, is in the grip of a man-made humanitarian crisis. The situation for the country’s religious minorities who have remained continues to worsen and the regime ramps up its persecution of those communities by attacking places of worship, forcibly conscripting minorities into its military, and continuing its genocide of the Rohingya Muslims. As we also heard earlier, there are other armed players in this conflict who are also perpetrating abuses that disproportionately affect religious minorities—notably, the Rohingya Muslims and Christians. It is a dire situation. I desperately urge the Government to reassess the short-term, counterproductive and frankly inhumane decision to cut overseas aid; every single penny taken out of that aid pot has real-life, real-world consequences for men, women and children. Although the return of UK aid would undoubtedly help considerably, so too would allowing refugees in Bangladesh the right to work and thereby to support themselves and their families. Of course I can understand why the Bangladesh Government would be reluctant to make legislative change that would, in their eyes, encourage 1 million or so refugees to stay within Bangladesh’s borders. But the reality is that these people cannot return home until it is safe for them to do so, and that is not happening any time soon. Last month, I visited Thailand and Malaysia with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief to meet many of those refugee communities who have been fleeing persecution—chiefly the Ahmadiyyas, Vietnamese Christians, Uyghurs, Chinese Christians and Iranian Christians, but also many more. Like Bangladesh, Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention. Legally, in Thailand, there is no such thing as a refugee, despite hundreds of thousands of them living there. The largest group of refugees in Thailand are from Myanmar, and they have lived in the camps along Thailand’s northern border for decades. With no legal right to work they obviously make a living in the black market, but in recent months the Thai Government have recognised the reality that such people are unable to return home and could well be an economic asset, and so have loosened the rules to allow them to work legally in Thailand. Perhaps, at least, the Government of Bangladesh might look at that—and indeed, why would the UK Government not look at it as well? What is happening in Thailand could happen in Bangladesh, and here. Refugees can be that economic asset. Allowing them to work will allow them to contribute, better themselves and benefit us all. I again thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate. I hope the Government can see that, although the persecution of these communities happens so far from our shores, we have a moral and a humanitarian obligation to help—because we absolutely, certainly do.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this urgent question. The aggregated coastline of my constituency is greater than that of France, so the fishing industry plays a crucial part in its economic wellbeing. Having barely survived the disaster of Brexit, this latest decision by the UK Government is another kick in the teeth to those fishing communities. We are all agreed that this formula is fundamentally unfair, so did the Secretary of State for Scotland come to the Minister’s Department at any point and specifically urge her to reverse this decision—yes or no?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  A year ago we were promised radical change, but the only radical change appears to be in the Labour party itself, which has decided that if you are poor, old or disabled, it will be you who will bear the brunt of the cuts and on whose backs the books will be balanced. So were the fiscal rules always predicated on going after the most vulnerable and the weakest and those least able to organise and fight back, instead of taking on the rich, the powerful, the multinationals and the tax avoiders?