Ukrainian Holodomor

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for initiating this debate and for a brilliant, concise and clear statement of the case. It is always slightly difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton: as noble Lords know, he prepares extremely well, so you are always worried that he has used most of the arguments that could be thought of in a debate such as this. But I am very pleased to join him.

I carry with me the apologies of my noble friend Lord Purvis, who would have been here but is on a parliamentary delegation to the Falklands. I very much hope that he comes back with the rest of the delegation and that they are not the first line of defence against the new Argentinian President. I am not simply standing in for my noble friend: I have had a long-term interest in Russian economic history, which was one of the formative studies of my life that made me a social democrat—even before being a Liberal Democrat.

As we start this debate, it pays us all to think of the families in our country who have done so much over the last year to look after families from Ukraine. I know a number in Winchester and where I live. It is a remarkable tribute to those families that they have done that, and, if I may say so, to the Government for the firm support that they have given, consistently with the rest of the country, to the people of Ukraine.

The war has revived the names of Kyiv, Kharkiv and Odesa, which all featured so closely in the story of the famine of the 1930s. It is a fact that so much of the current situation in Ukraine stems from that experience of the 1930s and of Soviet colonialism. The noble Lord has already mentioned Anne Applebaum’s writing. She talked in her 2018 book about the consequences of that experience in Ukraine. It allowed or encouraged a tolerance of corruption; it caused a great wariness of state institutions, even democratic ones; and she even talked, slightly surprisingly, about what she called the “political passivity” of Ukraine as a result of that experience. If she were writing now, I would hope that she might have a slightly different view about that since February 2022.

The other quite interesting aspect of recent history is obviously Russia’s attempt to systematically eliminate diversity, language and culture in Ukraine in the 1930s. It is a sequitur of that that Russians still see Ukraine not as a separate state but as part of their own nation.

We have not mentioned this, but the inventor of the word genocide comes from the Polish-Jewish Ukrainian city of Lviv—Raphael Lemkin. I will have a little bit more to say about him in a moment, because I think it is relevant to the story.

First, I will make a few points about the famine. There is no doubt that it was the breakdown in the system of the mixed economy that the Soviet Union was experimenting with in the 1920s that led to the full state industrial policy of the late 1920s and the need for wheat exports to feed the growing urban population in the Soviet Union and also to provide revenue from exports for its industrialisation. Ukraine was probably the most advanced agricultural area in the Soviet Union at that time, but it was also the most difficult for Stalin. Modernisation and collectivism would stimulate, inevitably, resistance from peasant communities and stir national sentiments—which is exactly what happened. The remarkable thing is that, and I think this was mentioned in an earlier speech, there were sufficient exports of grain going out of the Soviet Union that could have fed 5 million—the noble Lord talked about 12 million—and would have been enough to stop the starvation of the 4 million or so people who are said to have died.

We must remember that the 1930s was not a world of mechanised, computerised combine harvesters and even fertilisers. Land was largely manually farmed. Livestock was important for providing transport and movement. The central planners in Moscow had little appreciation of the importance of climate for individual harvests, or that crop yields did not necessarily rise year on year. The skills, motivation and knowledge of the kulaks were not replicated, as they were deported and extinguished by the Communist Party purges. Once the rural rhythm of rotation of crops, providing fodder for livestock and fertilising the ground with animal manure was upset, poor harvests followed and famine was a result. Soviet planners became more frustrated and, with the peasantry alienated from the collectivisation system, the result was that the Soviet authorities sought to impose their will through unrealistic quotas, deportation, resettlement, travel restrictions and purges on farms and villages.

Paralleling this were the purges not just of rural areas but of party officials in Ukraine and of the energetic cultural leaders of the country who were questioning the policy of the Soviet state and were likely to cause trouble to Stalin. The crackdown on the so-called hoarding of grain by the peasantry diminished stocks for the human population and for the animals needed to provide movement, traction and transport. One of the saddest stories is the 200,000 registered arrests—there were probably more—for gleaning grain from the harvests in the fields. It is like the miners going through the coal tips in the General Strike.

The forcible removal of food from people’s homes followed the ill-fated decree by Molotov and Stalin in 1932. Those very names send a chill through one’s back. In the next 12 months, millions died. Some died even when the spring crops came—people starved because their bodies were overwhelmed by the availability of this food, just like the inmates initially experienced in the concentration camps at the end of the war.

Was it genocide? Here I return to Raphael Lemkin, because, by the narrow definition of genocide agreed by the UN after the war, under the Soviet influence, it is not strictly genocide. This is one of our problems. However, Lemkin himself, who coined the term genocide, said in an essay in 1953, Soviet Genocide in Ukraine, that the USSR attacked Ukrainian elites precisely because they were

“small and therefore easily eliminated, and so it is upon these groups particularly that the full force of the Soviet axe has fallen, with its familiar tools of mass murder, deportation and forced labour, exile and starvation”.

We know that, after the war, the Soviets wanted to have a narrow definition of genocide because of their own culpability. This came to mean the physical elimination of an entire ethnic group in a manner similar to the Holocaust. The definition that is used legally for genocide is quite narrow, and the Holodomor does not actually meet this interpretation: it did not eliminate every Ukrainian. Sadly, we also have to accept that some Ukrainians were complicit in the Soviet actions. It is not surprising that the Soviets stopped the wider definition that could have applied.

Anne Applebaum notes that, during this part of the century, since the opening up of Ukraine and Russia, there had been quite a push to get people to recognise the famine in Ukraine in the 1930s as genocide. In 2018, she said that she thought it had probably had its moment and that the attempts had not got very far. She would almost certainly think very differently now. The current war has revived the concept that we should refer to this as genocide. As speakers have already said, it is important to the Ukrainian narrative, and to avoid its assimilation back into Russia, that we revive this concept. Russia’s complicity at the end of the Second World War in its defining of the word genocide makes an even stronger case for us to look at this definition again. I ask the Minister: can the British Government provide a lead now? If they cannot recognise it immediately, can they start discussions so that we can look again at whether the term genocide can apply to the Ukraine famine, as so many other countries have started to do?

There are two other conclusions to draw from this history and the relevance of today. One is that state power has to be subject to democratic checks and balances. A democracy is very complex and it is not always a straight line, but it is incredibly important where state power can create these sorts of tragedies. Ukraine will need a huge amount of help, both economically and politically, to strengthen these checks and balances. That is one of the problems of its history. However, when we look back on that history I hope we will challenge ourselves to ensure that it never happens again.

I have one final thought. The incredible realisation from going through the story is the question of how Putin ever thought he could easily overcome Ukraine and then rule it. He might have been successful in the short term but in the long term it would have been impossible. With Ukraine’s history, culture, language and resilience, which it is now showing, it would have resisted, as it did in the 1930s and as it will in the future. We wish Ukraine well. I hope we can give an encouraging sign by seeking to move this debate onwards.

Ukraine

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As Putin’s war of attrition against the people of Ukraine continues, we must stand firm with our NATO allies in providing military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance. We are at one with the Government on their support for Ukraine.

The people of Ukraine continue to show extraordinary heroism in defending their country against unprovoked and unjustifiable attacks that are having ramifications around the world, as the Minister put it in the Statement. Putin’s blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports is now driving a global humanitarian catastrophe, leading to a rise of 41% in global food prices. As a result, the International Rescue Committee projects that almost 50 million people will face acute hunger this year. The World Food Programme puts the estimate at 47 million.

The Minister will recall that last week I asked him about the Government’s response to the EU President’s strong backing at the Security Council for UN Secretary-General Guterres’s efforts to get a package agreement that would allow grain exports from Ukraine and ensure that Russian food and fertilisers have unrestricted access to global markets. In his response, the Minister referred to the Prime Minister’s conversation with President Zelensky that week but was not able to give a precise read-out of their discussion, only to say that this issue was a key focus of it. Is he in a position to respond more fully today? What precisely are we doing to work in concert with the EU on this important area?

Also, what progress has been made in identifying alternative sources of food supplies to tackle the global food crisis? Will the Government deliver on Labour’s call for the UK to convene an emergency global food summit with the UN?

This is an international crisis, but we must also remember that the people of Ukraine are paying the highest price. Unfortunately, the recently published international development strategy weakened and cut UK support for the multilateral system, which has been crucial to the delivery of humanitarian support to the people of Ukraine. Can the Minister confirm how much of the humanitarian support pledged to Ukraine to date will be delivered through the multilateral agencies?

Even in Russia, Putin’s invasion is now having disastrous consequences. In recent days, we have read how Alexei Navalny has been removed from a prison, his whereabouts now unknown. Can the Minister tell us what the FCDO has been doing to raise Mr Navalny’s case with Russian counterparts and to seek assurances for his safety and security?

As much as we must recognise that many in Russia are suffering as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion, there is also a ruling elite that must be held to account, as the Minister highlighted in the Statement. The Government claimed some time ago that they were looking into the possibility of confiscating and repurposing frozen Russian assets to provide compensation to victims of war in Ukraine. Since then, we have seen the US, Canada and the EU all developing proposals in this area. Is the Minister able to confirm whether the Government are still pursuing this course of action? If so, what resources have they committed to seeking a solution?

We must also continue to ask what we can do to bolster the security of other democratic states in the region, which will be less safe and secure as a result of the invasion. We should stand in full support of Finland and Sweden’s applications to join NATO, which we hope can be completed as quickly as possible. On that point, exactly what efforts is the FCDO making to persuade counterparts in Turkey to ensure that avoiding delays on these applications is paramount?

I welcome the Minister’s assurance in the Statement that the UK will continue to stand with Ukraine at this difficult and incredibly harmful period in its history. We stand with the Government in support of Ukraine.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome the actions that the British Government have taken to support the Ukrainian nation and its people, including welcoming the provision of multiple launch rocket systems. However, sometimes I get the impression—and the flavour of this Statement indicates this—that the Government think they are the only leading supporter of Ukraine. Actually, we as a nation should be more interested in partnerships being strengthened through this action with other nations, particularly through NATO and with the EU, because that is the organisation that is right on the doorstep of Ukraine.

We know that Russia is using hunger as a weapon of war, with the continued Russian blockade on Ukrainian Black Sea ports, where 98% of Ukrainian grain and wheat exports are harboured. We know that this is a deliberate tactic of war that will have catastrophic global reverberations. Is the UK involved in plans to release those grain stocks, particularly over land? Who are we working with to secure vital future food supplies from these sources?

The war in Ukraine and the global fallout that it has caused are a crisis of epic proportions, which makes the Government’s actions on international aid even more bewildering. Does the Minister really believe it is still appropriate to cut the international aid budget by 35%, as laid out in the Foreign Secretary’s international development strategy? How much of the £220 million pledged to Ukraine has already been delivered, and what impact has it had on the war and the humanitarian crisis? Is that money being kept quite separate from our normal overseas aid plans?

The Liberal Democrats campaigned hard to put pressure on this Government for the golden visa scandal to be ended. It saw thousands of visas granted to Putin’s associates, who laundered their dirty money and reputations in our country—the very same people whom the Government have now sanctioned. For months now the Government have told us that the review into the scandal will be published in due course, but little clarity has been forthcoming. Why are they delaying the publication of that report? Will the Minister confirm a timetable for publication?

We welcome the concept of a Marshall aid plan, but, to be effective, that requires the wholehearted support not just of this country but principally of the USA and the EU. What discussions are taking place with the EU so that there is a genuine partnership to make best use of the limited available resources? Obviously Ukraine is likely to be the principal beneficiary of this aid but, given the migration, the problems in Ukraine’s economy and the impact in Europe, partnership in Europe is very important to the success of any Marshall aid programme. Will the Government please comment?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords—oh, I am sorry. Forgive me.

Evacuations from Afghanistan

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I first acknowledge all the work that the noble Baroness engaged in both during the crisis and subsequently. She and I have worked on the important issue of vulnerable communities in Afghanistan, particularly the cohort of judges that she refers to. On the specifics of the number of vulnerable identified women, I can certainly write to her after consulting my colleagues at the Home Office. I have quoted an overall figure of 4,600 who have settled here in the UK since the evacuation, but I will write to her on the specific break- down after I have got the detail from the Home Office.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I pay tribute to the Minister’s role in this incident last year, but the report is pretty scathing about the Government’s mismanagement. It says that there were no necessary preparations for the withdrawal and no proper plan. There was mismanagement—indeed there seems to be a cycle of mismanagement in the Government—and I want to know precisely how the Foreign Office and the Government plan to stop this sort of action happening again.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as I have always acknowledged, there are always improvements that can be made—the same is true in the current crisis in Ukraine. You cannot say that any Government have a perfect response in every crisis; you do not know, because every crisis is different. We had made plans. I remember myself, after heavy diplomatic engagement with near-neighbours, that I returned via Dubai deliberately on the day that we handed the keys back to the Emiratis. There was no panic in Dubai; there was a massive operation there and we are grateful to the Emirati authorities for the strong co-operation that we saw then. That would not have happened if it had not been planned.

On the issue of lessons learned, I lived through the Covid crisis when we were repatriating, and one challenge that we faced then was chartering flights. In Afghanistan, not only did we have chartered flights ready but we had a reserve option, and indeed a second reserve option with other large carriers. Previous crises fed into the planning. Of course there are improvements to be made, and they are being implemented. We have seen that in the strong cross-government co-operation in the response to Ukraine and in the leadership that we have been able to show within the international community on the Ukraine crisis and more.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

So some approximations are possible. Why are the Government not willing to accept these numbers? They are there, so any Government with good will and who cared for our senior citizens would have ensured that it was possible to adopt some of these numbers, modify them or even commission research from the Bank of England and the ONS to that effect. However, I sense that the political will to improve the living standards of our senior citizens is not there. That is a fundamental problem.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief and speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Janke, our Front-Bench spokesman on this Bill. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today.

First, I will say that we are glad that the Government have reconfirmed their commitment to the triple lock in the long term throughout all these discussions. We are disappointed that the Commons have rejected these amendments. The Government had an excellent opportunity to maintain their manifesto commitment while taking into account the special circumstances of the pandemic. We will not be pursuing this amendment —we accept that this has to be accepted—but we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the work that she has done.

We are concerned that pensioners will not be protected from the effects of the economic pressures now coming from inflation. The Governor of the Bank of England is very uneasy about the situation and we want to know whether the Government are prepared to keep an open mind and look particularly at the case of the poorest pensioners as time goes on in the next few months, when these pressures will come to a head. More importantly, we are extremely supportive of the maintenance of the triple lock in the longer term.

[Lord Desai (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we have been hearing lately that the House of Lords is a rather useless body and that the other place is better—but twice recently your Lordships’ House has asserted that it cares more for the people than the other place. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, stood up for the right of the citizen to clean water, asserting that against what the Commons had said. We also stood up for the triple lock and had that rejected.

I have a very simple suggestion for the Government. Since they have no intention of helping pensioners, why can they not be honest and say that the triple lock simply means that we will raise pensions by the lowest number of the three which are here, unless it is higher than the Bank of England target of 2% inflation? The 2% inflation that the Bank of England has chosen as its target is not a statistic. It is not disputable because they have made it up. It will always stay at 2%. So the Government could at least guarantee to be honest; they could just give 2% and run away. They should not give false promises and then not fulfil them.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks and thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate on the Bill. For a short Bill, its impact is quite wide, affecting millions of people. Our debates have raised some crucial issues around approaches to uprating and the government strategy for retirement saving, and especially around the position of pensioners on lower incomes as we enter a season of spiralling prices. Not for the first time, it is possible that our deliberations may have a broader impact in parts of Westminster and Whitehall than perhaps we realise or will ever know—at least until the autobiographies of the future come to be written.

On the matter of memoirs, these proceedings have also been notable for the return to the fray of the former Minister for Welfare Reform, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, whose frank demolition of the Government’s case for social security cuts and policies such as the benefits cap will, I predict, turn out to have a half-life somewhere around that of uranium.

I thank the Minister for her concession on Report, in response to my amendment on pensioner poverty, that an impact assessment should be published. That happened on Friday. I look forward to having the opportunity, if we can, to discuss that with her and her officials in due course. Most importantly, we have amended the Bill to require the Government to find a way to adjust pension uprating and to maintain the earnings link, while making allowance for the pandemic. I urge the Government to take that seriously and to use the time they now have to find a better solution than that offered by the Bill.

Public trust in politics has taken a bit of a hit in recent times. If there were a way of pursuing this objective without dumping a manifesto commitment, we would all want that. In the meantime, I thank the Minister and her officials, colleagues across the House for their thoughtful contributions, and Dan Harris of our staff team for his marvellous support. We send the Bill back to the Commons with our best wishes, hoping that it will embrace it and hold on to it as it is.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, apologises for not being able to be here today. She has asked me to say a few words on behalf of our group. We very much welcome that noble Lords have agreed with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. We hope that it will enable MPs in the other place to think again about the need to protect pensioners from the worsening economic circumstances. In the time since the Bill’s passage through the other place, significant changes have taken place, with economic indicators leaving little doubt that pressures will grow in the months ahead. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly welcome the cross-party working made possible by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Sherlock. We have much appreciated the Minister’s helpful approach. We thank her for her openness and willingness to share information on the Bill. We extend sincere thanks and appreciation to the Bill team, who have provided us with expert professional advice at all stages.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend the Minister and the Bill team for all their work, and for the courtesy they have shown in meeting us many times to listen to the concerns we have expressed. I too am extremely grateful for the work across the House that was encompassed by this Bill. It has shown the House of Lords at its best. This is an issue of significant social importance where this House has shown that it believes that the other place took a decision based, perhaps, on incorrect information and has asked it to reconsider. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Janke, my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and others including the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Davies and Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for their hard work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has said, I hope the Government will find a way to retain this amendment in the Bill and uprate state pensions by more than the 3.1%, which is clearly inadequate to protect against cost of living increases.