Brendan O'Hara MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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 · 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?

• 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.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  I say to the Secretary of State that this is neither fair nor right; this is a betrayal. Today, my thoughts are with the brave, dogged campaigners of WASPI Argyll and the Isles, particularly Ann Greer, who has worked so hard for so many years seeking justice. The Secretary of State said in her statement that the Government are choosing to do what they are doing because it would be a “significant cost” and an “administrative burden” to do the right thing. Does she not see that that is an incredibly lame excuse for denying natural justice to women who are asking for nothing more than to receive what is owed to them and to which they are entitled?

• 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.

• 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.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, the Minister of State told the House that “we could not be clearer: intentionally directing attacks at civilian objects is a war crime. Those attacks threaten civilian access to power, heating and water supply, impacting the safety and livelihoods of millions of Ukrainians.” —[ Official Report , 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 29.] She was right, so why is it that the Government can call out Putin’s war crimes the moment they happen, but they seem utterly incapable of doing that when the perpetrator is Netanyahu and the victims are Palestinians?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Lebanon · Hansard source

  More

  Does bombing a hospital and having patients on IV drips burn to death in their beds constitute a war crime?

• 7 Oct 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think it will come as a huge surprise to anyone that, unlike the outraged masses sat to my right, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of the United Kingdom divesting itself of what little remains of its colonial past. Can I ask the Minister about the involvement of the Chagossian people in this process—a people who he accepts have been treated shamefully by the United Kingdom and whose forced displacement is rightly regarded as a crime against humanity? Will he be clear about when his Government met the Chagossian people, the nature of the discussions that were had and the extent to which the opinion of the Chagossian people was represented in this deal?

• 11 Sept 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. International law is clear: dropping 2,000 lb bombs on densely populated civilian areas is a crime. It is beyond dispute that Israel has used F-35s to do exactly that, yet this Government have chosen to exempt F-35 components from the arms licence suspension, when all they had to do was say that Israel could not be the end user if UK-manufactured parts were included. Last week, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said,“we either comply with international law or we do not.” —[ Official Report , 4 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 303.] Why has he chosen not to?