Middle East

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

We have one of the most robust export licensing regimes in the world. It is our legislation, so it is not the case that I have been proselytising to other countries to do what we have done. I did it because I believed that there was a clear risk that international humanitarian law was being breached in relation to our legislation. That is why I made the decision. It must be for others to reflect on their own laws and rules.

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

After a weekend of relentless Israeli attacks on a besieged population in northern Gaza, the United Nations has demanded that

“such blatant disregard for basic humanity and for the laws of war must stop”,

adding that the “entire population” of northern Gaza is “at risk of dying”. Unless the Foreign Secretary believes that the UN is lying, exaggerating or embellishing the situation in northern Gaza, there can be no basis whatsoever for the UK to continue arms sales to Israel. Is the UN lying, exaggerating or embellishing the truth of what is going on in northern Gaza right now?

[Mr Lammy]

The UN is absolutely not embellishing what is, very sadly, going on in Gaza right now, and that is why the United Kingdom has suspended arms sales for use in Gaza.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I told Wang Yi, the Foreign Minister, that it was not just unacceptable but counterproductive and that it needed to end. Those were my exact words.

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

Of course we were all pleased to hear both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister describe the release of Jimmy Lai as a priority. In the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart, what priority was given to the release of Jimmy Lai, and given its priority status when does the Foreign Secretary expect us to see measurable progress being made on Jimmy Lai’s release, and what will that progress look like?

[Mr Lammy]

“Progress” is Jimmy Lai’s release; that is the position of the UK Government. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when that will be, because we are not holding him; the Chinese are holding him. We continue to say that he should be released—that is our position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his question, but he must recognise that from the first day of the new Government coming into position we have sought to do all we can to advance the cause of a ceasefire. On the issue of international humanitarian law, which he rightly and clearly stated as an imperative, we have been consistently clear as a new Government that Israel must comply with international humanitarian law. It must allow unfettered aid access. Our message is clear: Israel could and must do more to ensure that aid reaches civilians in Gaza. We have upheld our legal requirements around that, as he will have seen in relation to decisions taken around arms export licences.

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

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?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I regret the tone of the hon. Member’s question. Surely he can recognise that the new Government prioritise doing all that we can to secure the required ceasefire. The Government have repeatedly conveyed not just messages but action time and again to make sure we play our part, and that has been recognised internationally. The changes we have made around UNRWA, our commitment to the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, ensuring we hold to our legal requirements around arms exports—that is a Government that are committed to international humanitarian law.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend, because the Commonwealth matters to those on the Government Benches. It used to matter to those on the Opposition Benches. As we head to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa, it is hugely important that we are a country that plays by the rules. That is why this agreement is so important.

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

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?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, this deal will mean that, for the first time, Chagossians will be able to resettle on the outer islands. This was a negotiation between the United Kingdom Government and Mauritius; that was the nature of the state agreement. Of course, we sought to keep Chagossians informed, but I remind the hon. Gentleman—he knows this—that there are a range of Chagossian groups, with some in the Seychelles, some in Mauritius and some in this country.

Middle East Update

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for prior sight of the statement, and of course we welcome anything that reduces the appalling death toll in Gaza and, increasingly, sadly, in the west bank. The statement raises many questions, however, that I will write to him about later.

I will press the Foreign Secretary on the issue of the UK recognising that the Netanyahu Government’s use of UK weapons poses a “clear risk” of the violation of international humanitarian law. He will be aware that there is no legal definition of what is an offensive weapon and what is a defensive weapon, so why and on what basis, if there is a “clear risk”—in his words—of the violation of international humanitarian law, has he not imposed a blanket ban on Israel until that risk has gone away completely?

[Mr Lammy]

We have one of the most robust export licensing regimes in the world. The process requires us to make an assessment of the clear risk in the theatre of conflict, which in this case is Gaza. We therefore made an assessment of the licences that could be used in Gaza, and I made this announcement today. Notwithstanding the concerns around international humanitarian law in that theatre of action, the hon. Gentleman should recognise the real threats that Israel faces from Lebanese Hezbollah, recognise what the Houthis are doing in the Red sea—in just the last few days, we saw a terrible attack on a Greek oil tanker—and recognise the long-standing relationship that this country has with Israel, particularly as regards the intelligence and military co-operation that keeps much of the middle east and the world safe. On that basis, my remarks are measured, and I defend that.

Lebanon

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my very good friend, who has been championing these issues for many, many years. This last period has, of course, been of huge concern to him and his constituents. I was horrified by the degree of expansion that I saw in the west bank a few weeks ago: there has been more in the past year than we have seen in 20 years. The violence is unacceptable, and the tone, rhetoric and statements from some members of the Government are very alarming indeed. As my hon. Friend would expect, I pressed these issues with both the Israeli Prime Minister and the Israeli President, and we keep the situation in the west bank under close review.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement and share his deep concern about where the region currently finds itself. He will not need reminding that, in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas atrocity on 7 October, the international community allowed Israel to blur the vital lines between legitimate self-defence and a lust for revenge. As a result, Israel has acted with impunity, 40,000 civilians are dead and Gaza has been reduced to rubble. What discussions has he had with Israel and our international partners to ensure that—heaven forbid—should this conflict escalate further, all those involved know, understand and accept that revenge and legitimate self-defence are not the same thing under international law, so that we avoid having another 40,000 civilian casualties in nine months’ time?

[Mr Lammy]

It was very important for me to visit the occupied territories and Israel within the first week in office. We said this in opposition and we say it again in government: of course, given the hostages who are still in Israel, Israel has a right to defend itself, but it is a qualified right—it has always been, within international humanitarian law. The scale of civilian loss of life—the children and the women who have lost their lives, the aid workers who have lost their lives—against a backdrop in which journalists are not allowed into the country has been a matter of deep concern and worry across the international community, so of course I have raised these issues. It was also important to meet hostage families and to be absolutely clear that we want to see those hostages returned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. Of course, aid materials must always be provided directly to those in need, particularly in a situation of humanitarian catastrophe, which is currently the case in Gaza. It is incredibly important that food and nutrition, clean water, other forms of sanitation, medicines and shelter are provided directly to those in need; it is absolutely fundamental that they must not be misappropriated. Of course, these are issues that we have discussed with UNRWA and other aid agencies that are involved in the region.

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

Key to ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is stopping the sale of weapons to those who have shown that they are prepared to use them indiscriminately against civilians. It has been suggested that the Government will continue to sell defensive weapons, but given that Israel defines its entire campaign as “defensive”, how do they propose to tell us at the end of the review on international humanitarian law how many of the 40,000 civilians killed were killed with defensive weapons, as opposed to offensive weapons? On what legal basis would such a determination be made?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The hon. Member will be well aware that this is a legal process and has to be complied with. This Government are absolutely clear that we must act with integrity and ensure that we are following all the legal procedures, as the Foreign Secretary set out last week in the House and has set out this morning.

Israel and Gaza

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

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

We are on a very dangerous road if we believe that the rule of law is something from which a Government can pick and choose. Unlike the Government, we very much welcome the decision of the International Criminal Court to issue warrants for the arrest of the Hamas leaders Sinwar, al-Masri and Haniyeh for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on, and subsequent to, 7 October. We have always unreservedly condemned the appalling Hamas attacks, the murders and the hostage-taking, and we repeat our call for the immediate release of the hostages.

Given the ferociously disproportionate Israeli response, which has seen 35,000 dead, 100,000 injured, tens of thousands of children orphaned, civilian infrastructure in ruins and the cutting off of food, water, electricity and medical supplies, we also welcome the ICC’s filing of applications for warrants for the arrest of both the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC says that it has evidence, including interviews with survivors and eyewitnesses, that shows that Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population of Gaza of what they need to survive. It has referred specifically to Israel using starvation as a weapon of war, and intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population. All these are acts that constitute a crime against humanity. The ICC has also confirmed everything that we have said about the crimes of 7 October, and Israel’s use of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing in response to those crimes.

For eight months, this Government have told us that they cannot make an assessment of breaches of international humanitarian law, but they have today—because it suits them—made an immediate assessment of the decision of the International Criminal Court, whose panel of experts consists predominantly of UK lawyers, simply because they do not agree with it. It is shameful and unforgivable that for eight months this Government have chosen to deny the evidence of their own eyes, and have given political cover and munitions to Israel. We have to assume, sadly, that if today does not put an end to the UK licensing of arms exports to Israel, absolutely nothing will.

[Mr Mitchell]

The position in respect of the ICC is simply not as the hon. Gentleman set out. The ICC has not done what he suggested; it has done nothing of the sort. He suggested that it had already found the answer to these allegations, but the truth is that the pre-trial chamber needs to consider the evidence, and to then reach a judgment. Let us not jump through all these hoops at once when they are simply not there to be jumped through.

Like the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Gentleman asks whether we are playing fast and loose with the rule of law. We are certainly not, and I hope that he will attend the main debate today, when he will see exactly what the Government think about the rule of law in all cases. Just because someone supports the role of the ICC, it does not mean that they have to be devoid of a view on what it is saying, and the Government are giving their view. As I said, we do not believe that seeking warrants will get the hostages out, get aid in or deliver a sustainable ceasefire, which remains the UK’s priority.

China

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees, for this important and extremely timely debate on the UK Government’s approach to China.

As everyone has, I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing the debate, and thank all those who have taken part in a wide-ranging, well-informed and bilingual debate. It has highlighted many of the concerns we must consider, including China’s belt and road initiative; the well-documented mistreatment of religious and ethnic minorities; the use of the national security laws in Hong Kong; the future of Taiwan; Chinese multilateralism, particularly given the emergence of BRICs; the inherent dangers in the development of the internet of things; and the challenges that we face with the CCP activities in monitoring both their own people and pro-democracy Hong Kong activists here in the UK. There are many and varied concerns, and I hope the Minister can address as many of them as possible, but it is not possible to address the problems and challenges posed by China in one Westminster Hall debate.

We all recognise that in a relatively short time China has become one of the most politically and economically powerful countries in the world. There is now barely a country that is not either in hock to China financially or desperately trying to defend its economic interests from China. When the UK Government consider the future of their economic and political relationship with China, it is essential that securing trade and business links with Beijing does not come at the cost of our obligation to defend international human rights. Furthermore, we must not compromise national security in pursuit of the yen.

The political and economic reach of China is astonishing. Beijing’s phenomenally successful global infrastructure project, the belt and road initiative, has seen China invest in almost 150 countries. Those countries account for around two thirds of the world’s population and 40% of global GDP. Massive investment in links by road, rail, sea and digital infrastructure have transformed the relationship that those participating nations have with Beijing, making them increasingly dependent on the Chinese economy and, as a result, building in both economic and political influence for China.

Indebtedness, mainly among developing nations in the global south that have accepted such investment through the belt and road initiative, now stands at an eye-watering $1 trillion. Lord Alton of Liverpool said:

“This has made them extraordinarily subservient and often into vassal states that do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 675.]

That is particularly problematic not just because of the massive level of indebtedness these countries are accruing, but because they are becoming indebted to a country that has shown itself so often not to care for the rules-based order on which we all depend or for the fundamental human rights of their religious or cultural minorities.

But let us be very careful before we condemn others for turning a blind eye to Chinese human rights abuses in pursuit of investment. The UK’s hands are far from spotless on this matter. Time and again we pay lip service to criticising Chinese human rights abuses without doing anything that may incur any economic cost for ourselves.

Nury Turkel, the Uyghur-American lawyer and the commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, has directly challenged countries such as the UK, asking, “How do you propose to get China to change without going after the most important thing to the Chinese Government, which is their economic interest?” Whether the Minister likes it or not, it is an inescapable fact that, as long as we pay little more than lip service to condemning China’s human rights abuses and continue to trade in goods that we know are, at the very least, highly suspected of being made by Uyghur slave labour, we really do not have a moral high ground from which to lecture others.

For example, last month the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), secured an Adjournment debate on solar supply chains, in which she made it clear that, by lagging behind the US and the European Union in ensuring that Chinese solar panels that come to the UK are not produced by Uyghur slave labour, the UK was in real danger of becoming a dumping ground for what she described as “dirty solar”.

This is not a new issue for the Government. Just over two years ago I introduced a Bill that would have prohibited any goods made by forced labour in the Xinjiang region. It would have required all companies that import products from Xinjiang to the UK to provide proof that they were not manufactured by forced or enslaved labour. The Bill would have brought the UK into line with the United States, which passed a similar law in 2021. So there have been opportunities to act, but thus far the UK Government have chosen not to. That is why, Minister, there is a growing perception that this Government are just paying lip service on Chinese human rights abuses without doing anything practical or tangible.

I recall a similar debate in 2020. The UK Government Minister’s reply then was that the Government would

“continue to urge the Chinese authorities to change their approach in Xinjiang and respect international human rights,”

but four years on there is no evidence whatever that that approach has worked, and it is clear that China has not paid the slightest heed to what the UK Government or anyone else have to say about its human rights record.

It is not just the Uyghurs whose human rights have been trampled over. Last week, at a surgery on the Isle of Bute, I met my constituent Mary Clark, who is a Falun Gong practitioner. She reminded me that it is five years since the China tribunal led by Sir Geoffrey Nice found that the Falun Gong practitioners in China were being subjected to the most awful crimes, including the unspeakably horrific practice of organ harvesting. That is truly a crime against humanity. Despite the overwhelming evidence and unambiguous verdict of the tribunal, the response that was demanded of Governments and other international actors simply did not follow.

Not even after the 2021 report from the UN on freedom of religion or belief, which provided clear evidence of such abhorrent practices, did the international community take any action against China. Thankfully, we are reminded at every opportunity by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right, and as part of the international community we have a responsibility to protect it.

In short, we talk a good game but we never deliver. Decades of harsh condemnation, despite urging and impassioned persuasion, have failed to shift China one iota. It seems that not even the tearing up of a legally binding international agreement and a slew of broken promises made to the people of Hong Kong can stir the UK into much more than finger wagging, tut-tutting and headshaking.

The speed at which Beijing has stripped away the basic freedoms of expression and peaceful protest, and has extinguished Hong Kong’s independent free press—turning it from being one of the most open cities in Asia to one of the most repressive—should alarm every one of us. The use of the draconian national security law to crack down on pro-democracy campaigners, including Jimmy Lai, who is still on trial, is an absolute disgrace and a shame on this country. If that does not motivate the UK to take a more robust attitude to Beijing, we have to conclude that perhaps nothing will.

We are not naive enough to believe that the UK could stand up to the economic might of China by itself. But sadly, all too often, when presented with the opportunity to act in concert with friends and allies, the UK Government have chosen not to.

War in Gaza

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

A week ago from that Dispatch Box, the Minister said:

“Given the number of civilians sheltering in Rafah, it is not easy to see how such an offensive could be compliant with international humanitarian law”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 141.]

Despite repeated appeals for Israel not to attack Rafah, just hours after the dashed hopes of a ceasefire, that offensive is happening. Is this the breach of international humanitarian law you referred to last week, and will that breach immediately end UK sales of arms to Israel? Or is this yet another example of the UK declaring a red line only for Israel to completely ignore it without condemnation or consequence? We know how this plays out, Minister. You plead with them, they ignore you, they do what they want and you find excuses for them. A blind eye will be turned to the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and while the UK Government call for more aid to the survivors, they will continue to issue arms export licences. That has been the pattern of behaviour for seven months. Can we expect anything different now?

[Mr Mitchell]

On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, he will know that we are working flat out in these very difficult circumstances to achieve something different, and we will continue to do so. He quoted what I said the last time I was at the Dispatch Box, and I would point out that the words I have used today, in answering the same question, are virtually exactly the same. I have made it clear that there would have to be a plan that respected international humanitarian law, and we have not yet seen such a plan. That is entirely consistent with what I said before.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of arms. The Foreign Secretary announced on 9 April that the British position with regard to export licences is unchanged. We do not publish the Government’s legal advice, but we always act in accordance with it. I would point out that we publish data on export licensing decisions transparently and on a quarterly basis.