Hunger: East Africa and the Horn of Africa

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing this important debate. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for water, sanitation and hygiene.

I lived in Kenya for four years, and I know that the connections between this country and east Africa go very deep. I hardly meet any group of people without finding someone with an east Africa connection.

British people care, enormously, which is shown by the huge, generous support for recent aid requests, the strength of feeling about suffering and the feeling that British people want to help. But the east Africa food crisis has gone relatively unreported, and is not being raised as much as it should be, and so I am grateful that we are holding this debate.

This is the worst humanitarian crisis in 40 years. More than 50 million people have been pushed to acute food insecurity, and a person dies every six seconds in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya—it is hard to get our heads around these figures, and the desperation. This is a perfect storm of climate change, with five successive rainy season failures and a likely sixth one, right now; conflict; disease outbreaks; the cost of living crisis; a reduction in aid; and countries saddled with unpayable levels of debt. Undoubtedly, it is political decisions that have led to this crisis.

About 22.7 million people across Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia face high levels of food insecurity—desperate hunger—compared with 18.6 million last August. That is an increase of 4 million people in the past six months, which shows how severe the drought has been.

The crisis is chronically underfunded—the overall funding requirements stand at about $5.1 billion for Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia—and that underfunding is unsustainable. Implementing partners are having to stop projects and suspend or reduce lifesaving programmes due to underfunding at this critical time.

As always, women and girls are affected the most—they are on the frontline. They suffer higher risks of malnutrition and violence, and there is increased child and forced marriage.

Verity is an aid worker from CAFOD, who reported from a recent visit to northern Kenya:

“Returning from Marsabit, the situation is desperate and deteriorating. I was shocked by the scale of livestock deaths, asset loss and clear desperation of communities. I was struck by the huge numbers of dead animals—mostly camels; the cattle are long gone. The landscape and roadsides are littered with carcasses, some are skeletons, some have fallen only hours before. The condition of any remaining animals is extremely poor…

There is no grazing—the assessments rate the availability of pasture in Marsabit as ‘extreme’—in many places it looks like the surface of the moon. Endless rock and dust—not a blade of grass… In towns there is no land available so groups are scattered, there is little water and little assistance. The households we spoke to had driven away their last remaining camels into the bush as they knew they would die and they would not be able to move the bodies if they died near the homestead. People are dignified but desperate…you can sense fear. People are talking of death.”

Aid agencies have for months been calling for the UK to increase aid to the region by £70 million, but this has not happened. Where is our aid money going instead? It has been drastically cut, skewed towards trade and spent on propping up the failing Home Office. The International Development Committee’s recent report, “Aid spending in the UK”, was very illuminating. For a start, the facts about aid spending were hard to find. The Committee found that it was not transparent and that recent answers from the Minister were “wilfully opaque”. The report said:

“The proportion of aid spent in the UK has drastically increased in recent years, while programmes supporting people in the world’s poorest countries were cut”,

which goes to the heart of this matter. The report also said:

“In 2021, the most recent year for which data are available, the Government spent more than £1 billion of the aid budget on in-country refugee costs”

in the UK, including hotels.

It is a crazy situation. There are fantastic young people—from Ethiopia, for example—travelling here who did not want to leave their country, but the money is being spent on hotel costs, instead of on helping them to stay in Ethiopia and support their own country, which is where they want to be. Save the Children has estimated that the cost of spending in the UK could be as high a £4.5 billion in 2022-23, accounting for one third of the entire aid budget. It is just extraordinary. Water and sanitation programmes have been cut by 80%, which does not match what British people want their aid to be spent on. In the last financial year, the UK pledged only £156 million to the crisis, which is less than a fifth of the £861 million provided in 2017-18.

To conclude, I ask the Minister to urgently commit to release already-pledged funding, to invest in and support communities and primary healthcare, to cut the debt, to transform the UK’s agriculture portfolio towards local, diverse food systems, to fund water and sanitation projects as an emergency response, and to introduce clear targets to increase funds reaching local organisations, rather than just through multilateral organisations. The climate emergency is very real. I hope that both the media and Ministers are listening to this debate today, and that urgent action will be taken to save lives.

UK’s Exit from the European Union

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing this hugely important debate, and Peter Packham for starting the petition and organising it across the country.

More than 180,000 people have signed the petition, including 439 in my constituency. The numbers are rising all the time. That is a clear indication that the public’s patience with this Government’s botched Brexit deal has evaporated. The public want answers. Last week, an online poll of 1,340 voters by Omnisis showed that 59% thought that an inquiry should probably or definitely be launched, with just 25% against. We know why—because the Government are not giving answers to the questions. It should not take an inquiry to get the answers. Week in, week out, Labour has been raising the issues of the impact of Brexit. I understand the frustration of the public and why an inquiry is being called for.

An inquiry would be hugely expensive and it would take a long time, but people want answers now so that we can mitigate the damage being caused by Brexit. If, as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) said, it is so wonderful, there has been a Brexit dividend and we are seeing the success, we would love to know where it is. Whatever people think about Brexit—whether they think it has been good for the country or not, and whether a Brexit dividend may come in time but just not yet—everyone should support an assessment being made of the outcome so far. Brexit has been such a defining political moment of our time and we need answers about what the result has been—importantly, to mitigate any damage being caused.

In December 2021, I called for a debate on the impact of Brexit and a region-by-region report. The then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), gave me this response:

“We can start Prayers every morning…with a celebration of Brexit. We should have the Brexit prayer and perhaps even the Brexit song…because it has been a triumph for this nation in reasserting its freedom.”

I am not doing a very good impression of his accent. He said that we now have “happy fish” and that across the country

“there is general celebrating and rejoicing”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 591.]

That level of delusion, flippancy and not taking the issue seriously is very frustrating for people across the country, and it is why they signed the petition in such large numbers. This cannot be the last word—just writing it off and saying that Brexit has been a success without giving evidence.

We need to know the impact because of the enormous political cost to our country of the Brexit debate. Big promises were made to voters before the referendum. Are those promises being delivered? We need to disentangle the impact of Brexit from that of covid, the energy crisis, the cost of living crisis and Ukraine, so that any problems that we face as a country cannot be written off as consequences of them. We need to find out the cost of Brexit and who is being impacted by region, age and sector. So many different places within our country are impacted—environmental standards, food standards, financial services, agriculture, fishing, the construction industry and the creative industries, including musicians. There is the impact on the workforce, especially in the NHS and health services; on education, educational opportunities, scientific research and school trips; on security and the loss of businesses—all those things are never brought together by the Government, so we cannot see the cumulative impact in all those areas.

Many different think-tanks and researchers are giving us the costs of Brexit, but we are not hearing definitive answers, despite Labour asking for them again and again. Bloomberg says that it costs the UK economy £100 billion a year. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that ours will be the only leading economy to shrink. The Office for Budget Responsibility concludes that Brexit will reduce long-run productivity by 4%. The Centre for European Reform said that by the end of last year the economy was 5%, or £31 billion, smaller than it would have been had we stayed in the EU. Surely with those figures, we need a better, clearer independent assessment of the facts.

The red tape faced by businesses is at a record high. Export declarations that businesses must fill in when moving goods from the UK more than tripled after the UK left the single market and customs union, while import declarations have increased by 50% during this time. Several businesses in my constituency of Putney have reported exactly that. We have lost 300 businesses in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields since 2021. I would like to know why, what part of it is owing to the impact of Brexit, and how we can course-correct right now to stop the damage.

The music industry has been mentioned already. The failure to secure ease of access for touring bands across the EU is embarrassing and ludicrous. Surely that can be changed. School trips from and to the European Union have been reduced. The School Travel Forum reported a reduction from 13,000 overseas trips in 2019 to just 2,500 in the first eight months of last year. Obviously, part of that is the impact of covid, but a huge part is the change in passport requirements and the increase in visa costs for parents, which has increased the administrative burden. That can also be changed right now.

Then there is the impact on the workforce. Many EU citizens who have left were key workers, and the backbone of our public services. All working people deserve to know the impact on our healthcare facilities. Every healthcare facility I visit tells me that Brexit has a clear impact on recruitment and the delivery of healthcare. Labour keeps asking about and exposing the impact on working people, and the Government must answer our questions.

I hope that the Minister shows more humility in his response to this debate than the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, who I quoted at the beginning of my speech. The Government cannot run from scrutiny on Brexit forever. The public deserve answers. They deserve honest reflection, hard facts and figures, and a plan to put right some of the worst damage of Brexit. I hope to hear that from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I foresee a future where we have a very dynamic innovation sector, supported by the Government but working in partnership with our European friends. I will not give a running commentary on our negotiations on the Horizon programme, but colleagues will know that they are under way. Our approach is one of buoyant confidence about the benefits of future co-operation—that is all I will say. I hope the hon. Member shares my confidence.

To give another example, we must also remember that the Chancellor’s work on financial services will see more than 30 regulatory reforms unlock investment and turbocharge growth across the UK. A new approach to regulation will make meaningful change for the British public, with, for example, faster access to new medical treatments.

[Fleur Anderson]

On the subject of the confidence expressed in the business environment created by Brexit, it has been reported today that the number of UK chief executives quitting their jobs has more than doubled as bosses battle sluggish growth and a nightmare of EU red tape. The number of chief executives who have left their role jumped by 111%. Would the Minister agree that the business environment created by Brexit has not been entirely jubilant?

[Leo Docherty]

Of course, there have been choppy waters in recent times—I have not denied that. My proposition is that, taken in the round, the future growth of this country is clear to see, and the hon. Lady should share our confidence in the UK’s ability to be an agile, global and extremely dynamic economy, which no doubt we will be.

Let me make some comments on immigration, because Brexit has allowed us to move to a much fairer immigration system. The Government have introduced a points-based system to attract top talent from around the world, while at the same time activating the enormous potential of the UK workforce. The global points-based immigration system is focused on talent and skills, not where someone comes from, and makes it easier for the brightest and best to live and work in the UK. We have already introduced a comprehensive suite of new work routes and we continue to welcome and retain thousands of valuable and talented workers—scientists, researchers, doctors, nurses, engineers, bricklayers and plumbers. The points-based system is attracting worldwide talent and skills, including from EU member states, and we are grateful for it.

Turning to EU-UK cultural exchanges, colleagues will agree that Brexit was never about the UK stepping away from our proud and historic role in Europe. We continue to support cultural exchanges between the UK and the EU, such as the Turing scheme, which allows UK educational organisations to fund life-changing experiences around the world, and we will do everything that we can to facilitate a high flow rate of schoolchildren in both directions.

On our relationship with the EU, the Government are fully focused on implementing the trade and co-operation agreement, and the newly agreed Windsor framework. Both the withdrawal agreement and the TCA are functioning as intended. We look forward to entering a new phase in our post-Brexit relationships in Europe. As we set out in our recent refresh of the integrated review, the UK is committed to upholding the stability, security and prosperity of our continent and of the Euro-Atlantic as a whole.

It is our ambition to build even stronger relationships with our European partners based on values, reciprocity and co-operation across our shared interests, and we will provide leadership where we are best placed to do so. We will continue to work very closely in areas of mutual benefit, as we have in our response to Ukraine, and we are much looking forward to hosting partners from across Europe, including EU member states, at the European Political Community meeting in the UK in July 2024.

Once again, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. The Government will continue to seize the benefits of Brexit, delivering on our manifesto commitments to the British people, and we will work closely with our European neighbours, both in the EU and beyond, to uphold our shared values of inclusion, freedom, prosperity and democracy.

International Child Abduction

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I warmly congratulate my London colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), on securing this hugely important debate. It will not be top of the headlines today, but this issue is of high importance to many families across the country. When we talk about crimes, we describe some crimes as being high in number but low in impact and others as low in number but very high impact, and that is what we are talking about today.

It has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on this issue. I hope this debate is a watershed moment for those parents suffering because of this injustice. I hope that it acts as a wake-up call to Government to right a wrong that was done—inadvertently, I believe—over the time of Brexit and can be put right.

We are talking about children who are settled in school, settled in their communities and with their families, including their wider family. I am here on behalf of a constituent who is a wider family member, not a parent. That shows the impact that child abduction has; it impacts not just the parents and the close family, but the wider family.

These children are seeing their mother and father on a regular basis in accordance with what the UK courts agreed and stipulated, but then, without the consent of one of the parents, the other parent suddenly, and illegally, takes the children, or the child, from that stable home and community, and relocates them in another country. Twenty-eight days pass and the children are still not home. At this point, under UK law, such actions become a criminal offence called parental child abduction. The parent knows where their children are and who they are with, and they know that a criminal offence has taken place and that their children have been taken illegally. They try all the legal procedures and remedies one by one, but they have been failed and let down by them, and then they are left without their children, without justice and without help and hope. I cannot imagine the despair felt by those families.

The sad reality is that, in 2021, over 1,200 cases involving child abduction were considered by the UK courts. That is not just a handful of children. But the core problem, and the reason why we are here today, is that Brexit left a gaping hole in the legal framework that is supposed to protect children and parents from this crime and ensure that children return to their settled homes. There is a human right to a family life—a human right to live with your family and, where this is not possible, the right to regular contact, which is being contravened by the situation at the moment.

Up until the withdrawal agreement, families could rely on the Brussels II regulation. That piece of EU law provided greater protection for victims of child abduction by ensuring the reciprocal enforcement of family court orders. In matters of child abduction, if the child is not returned under the 1980 Hague convention, the court in the country from which the child was abducted can make its own finding as to whether return is necessary, which is automatically enforceable in the other country. The process is generally quick and completed within a matter of weeks, and it enables that human right to be upheld, but this vital protection was stripped from the statute book after Brexit and has not been replaced.

The most frustrating thing is that, in the intervening years, the Government seem to have been tone deaf to the problem and have not yet worked out a solution, so I have been reading the views of the current Secretary of State in various pieces of correspondence. What he has said so far suggests that he has not really turned his full attention to the issue or worked hard to get a solution. For instance, he said that:

“The Government is satisfied that the 1980 Hague convention provides an appropriate mechanism to seek the return of children wrongfully removed from the country of habitual residence.”

However, I do not agree with that and neither do victims. It is not what we are seeing from families coming to us. It may be true of certain countries, but there is huge variation in how rigorously the convention is applied. The UK and Australia may be held up as examples of good practice in returning children swiftly, but some countries rarely return children promptly, if at all.

We have focused on Poland today, and I agree that Poland is a strong ally and a friend of our country. I have many Polish constituents who are a valuable part of our community, but Poland seems to be one of the problem countries in this regard. Estimates from Polish family lawyers suggest that less than 5% of all abducted children are returned, and a look at the latest publicly available data shows that the number of returns from Poland is consistently below the global average. Last year, legislation was passed in Poland that allows the return of a child to be suspended if the prosecutor general, the commissioner for children’s rights or the commissioner for human rights issues an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. For whatever reason, there seems to be growing resistance in the Polish courts to return children under The Hague convention, which is why it is important to hold this debate now and to solve the problem before it becomes embedded.

It was very concerning to read the Secretary of State’s view that the UK must respect the jurisdiction and laws of Poland. I agree that we must respect those laws, but the Polish courts need to respect the decisions of our courts and the rights and welfare of British children who have been taken from their home. The Government may well argue that additional protections exist in the form of the 1996 Hague convention, which reinforces the 1980 convention by underlining the primary role played by the authorities of the child’s habitual residence in deciding on matters that affect the child in the long term. In short, it helps with enforcement, but there are big problems with this option too.

First, it is far slower, usually taking around a year to be processed. A year of young children’s lives is a year far too long. Secondly, the 1996 Hague convention allows the country to which children have been abducted to exercise discretion. The destination country may choose to ignore this on domestic policy grounds. Therefore, in certain countries, where there is resistance to returns, the return of abducted children may be near impossible, and that cannot be justice.

The main takeaway from this is clear: ending our participation in the Brussels regulations has left victims of child abductions and our own courts worse off. I end with some questions to the Minister. Why are the Government dragging their heels on reinstating the Brussels regulations? Can she provide any good reasons for their doing so? Will she recognise the serious pitfalls and inadequacies in The Hague conventions? What discussions has she had with countries with a low return rate, such as Poland, and will she recognise the fact that that is the situation? How can we ensure that their courts respect decisions made in our courts? Will she meet hon. Members who are here today, in this debate, to look at the particular cases that we are raising? I implore the Minister to show common sense and justice, and restore Britain’s participation in the reciprocal enforcement of court-ordered child arrangements under—

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. This sitting will be suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House, or 25 minutes if two Divisions are expected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate may now continue until 4.17 pm. I call Fleur Anderson to conclude her remarks.

[Fleur Anderson]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins.

To conclude, the main takeaway is clear: ending our participation in the Brussels regulation has left victims of child protections and our own courts worse off. There was a legal regulation in place, but that legal regulation now needs to be put into our own UK law. There were supposed to be Brexit benefits, not exactly the opposite. Back in 2017, the Justice Committee said:

“We recommend that the Government should seek to maintain the closest possible cooperation with the EU on family justice matters, and in particular to retain a system for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments.”

That is exactly we are talking about now.

Surely no one intended the UK’s withdrawal from the EU to remove our country’s ability to protect British children from abduction. The absence of this protection from the withdrawal agreement is yet another oversight in a deal that was far from “oven-ready” and that has exposed families such as that of my constituent, and of the constituents of other Members, to the pain and trauma of abduction. That cannot be left to diplomatic fixes and to the whim of which ambassador will work with us in another country; instead, there must be a legal fix for justice to be seen. It can and must be fixed.

Ukrainian Holodomor and the War in Ukraine

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I will come on to what our Government have said in the past. It is important, because the people who were subjected to the genocide, and many of the people who were there and survived, are no longer alive, so it is incredibly difficult to go to court and prove anything from that time.

In June 2013, just after the 80th anniversary of the Holodomor, I first led a debate in this House calling for the UK Government to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. I tried again in November 2017, but we have just marked the 90th anniversary this year and there is still no official recognition by the Government. I hope that today will prove third time lucky, and that there will be no need for a similar debate on the same subject in 10 years’ time, when it will be 100 years since the Holodomor took place.

“Holodomor” is a Ukrainian word that means “to inflict death by hunger”. However, the term now refers to the entire Stalinist campaign to eliminate the Ukrainian nation, which culminated in the forced famine of 1932 and 1933, killing millions of Ukrainians. The exact number is not known, because the Soviet Union refused to allow reporting of the famine, but it is estimated that 7 million, and maybe as many as 10 million, died in Ukraine, with many more deaths in neighbouring Soviet states. The Holodomor was a policy designed to eliminate the Ukrainian rural farmer population, who were the embodiment and spirit of Ukrainian culture and nationhood.

To understand the Holodomor, it is important to keep in mind the context of that period. In 1922, when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was proclaimed, Soviet Ukraine was part of it, after being invaded by the Bolsheviks following the Russian revolution. Although Soviet Ukraine theoretically retained some domestic control, in reality all decisions were made by the Soviet leadership in Moscow. The Communist party of Ukraine’s membership was less than 20% Ukrainian, so the Bolsheviks had very little support. Initially, from 1923, the Communist party took steps to appease the local population, including encouraging the Ukrainian language and culture and encouraging Ukrainians to join the party. However, by the end of the 1920s, Stalin had taken over as party leader and imposed a new revolution from above, which included banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, arresting the clergy, and arresting, deporting and executing Ukrainian nationalists and the cultural elite. Intellectuals, writers and artists committed suicide rather than be deported to Russia.

At the same time, the Stalinist Government was embarking on rapid industrialisation, and the cost fell most heavily on the Ukrainian rural classes. Wholesale agricultural collectivisation took place from 1929. Wealthy peasants, known as kulaks, had their property taken away and faced further sanction. By the mid-1930s, 100,000 such families had been deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan. In response to resistance in 1932 and 1933, Stalin’s Government imposed impossibly high grain requisition quotas, which had to be satisfied before any grain could be kept by the local population. In 1932, not a single Ukrainian village met the quota threshold assigned to it. Anyone who kept grain destined for Russia was executed by firing squad. Special police roamed the countryside searching homes and summarily executing those who were found to have stored food. Moscow refused to provide any relief. In fact, at that exact time, Moscow was exporting more than a million tonnes of grain to the west. Callously and cruelly, Stalin shut Ukraine’s eastern border, preventing Ukrainians from fleeing to Russia.

These conditions led to the most horrific situation for the people of Ukraine. Men, women and children starved to death in their villages. This was not a famine; there was enough grain, even with a below average harvest in Ukraine, to comfortably feed the entire population. The grain was exported to Russia, and Ukrainians were prevented from escaping. Again, this was not a naturally occurring famine. This was murder by starvation.

At the height of the famine, 25,000 people died every day of starvation, including children too small to feed themselves, who were reliant on their parents. Some people tried to commit suicide to escape the horror of starving to death. Those who refused to steal or leave died of hunger. Those who tried to steal were shot. Those who tried to leave were returned to their villages to face the same impossible choice. Villages turned to cannibalism to survive. The dead were unburied and the sick untended. These are difficult details to hear, but it is crucial that we appreciate the scale of the Holodomor. There is a large Ukrainian community in Derbyshire. In my meetings with them over the last decade, they have asked me to persist with my efforts to seek recognition of the Holodomor as a genocide.

Raphael Lemkin was an academic and lawyer who coined the term genocide. Lemkin was born in Poland and studied at the University of Lviv in modern-day Ukraine. He defined genocide—a new word coined to denote an old practice. Genocide literally means the killing of a race. Lemkin was influential in the drafting of the genocide convention, an international treaty that criminalises genocide and has been unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Article II of the convention defines genocide as

“acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

That specifically includes killing members of the group and imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group. The Holodomor was a genocide.

On the last two occasions that I have brought this debate forward, the relevant Minister has informed the House that His Majesty’s Government will recognise an event as a genocide only once it has been recognised as such by a court. I am no lawyer, but I think it is very clear from the definition that I have set out and the history that I provided that Stalin did set out to destroy, in whole or in part, a national group—the Ukrainians. He did so by killing some, and imposing living conditions —starvation—intended to destroy the group. The fact that millions died from starvation due to Stalin’s policy when Ukraine was not in the grasp of a famine is indicative of that.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for calling for this debate. I visited the Holodomor memorial with other MPs last year. As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) is outlining, the denial and downplaying of the Holodomor is very damaging, and is having real-world impacts right now in modern-day Ukraine. Twenty-three countries have decided to go ahead and declare the Holodomor a genocide. They include Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland and even the European Parliament. Does the hon. Member agree that this is an important time to stop denying this, and to declare the Holodomor a genocide?

[Mrs Latham]

Yes. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is absolutely why this debate is so important—because we cannot deny the genocide any longer. It has to be recognised by this Government, because we will be—we are—an outlier.

Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians were not in the grasp of famine. He deported the cultural elite and suppressed Ukrainian culture, and there was the breaking of the rural communities. Stalin’s closure of the borders and refusal to send aid, despite selling millions of tonnes of grain to the west, are yet further proof. His desire to end Ukrainian identity is absolutely clear, and Soviet actions in the aftermath of the Holodomor—decimated villages were resettled with ethnically Russian communities—are conclusive.

Raphael Lemkin put the matter very clearly in a speech at the 20th commemoration of the Holodomor in New York City in 1953. He described the Holodomor as

“perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification—the destruction of the Ukrainian nation.”

He recognised that there were no attempts at “complete annihilation”, as had taken place in the holocaust. However, his most powerful quote is as follows:

“And yet, if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priests and the peasants can be eliminated, Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation rather than a mass of people.”

The Lemkin quote sets out very clearly why the Holodomor amounts to a genocide. It also leads me on perfectly to another reason why today’s debate is so important. Those words, delivered by him 70 years ago, resonate with us today. Ukraine is once again threatened by Russian expansionism. Thankfully, Stalin failed, and the culture, beliefs and common ideas, the very soul of Ukraine, survived. On countless occasions in the last year, we have paid tribute in this House to the spirit and soul of the Ukrainian people in their battle against Putin.

The UK Government should always recognise crimes against humanity, including genocide, wherever they happen. In my last debate on this subject, it was suggested to me that official international recognition is less important than the memory of these events in defeating genocide. I do not agree. In my experience of serving on the Select Committee on International Development, I have visited both Rwanda and Bosnia, and have seen the peace processes that followed the Rwanda genocide and the Srebrenica massacre. Those have both been recognised as genocides by the UK Government, and that matters to the people. In any case, the Holodomor is now 90 years ago. Although my local Ukrainian community is brilliant at arranging annual commemorations and campaigning on this issue, the Holodomor is now almost out of human living memory. International recognition is absolutely crucial for local communities, and it is no surprise that the Ukrainian Government have welcomed a host of countries’ recognising the Holodomor as a genocide.

Recognition matters to the other side, too. In October 2022, when Russian forces took Mariupol, they tore down the Holodomor memorial, saying that it represented disinformation at the state level. It is clearly important to both the victims and the perpetrators when such an event is formally recognised.

That brings me on to my second point about recognition. I said that the Government should always recognise genocide when it occurs, and that is true, but in this case there is an even more obvious reason to do so. Ukraine is threatened again, and its strongest allies around the world are standing up and supporting it. That is why the delegation went a couple of weeks ago to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian nation and say, “We support you.”

As the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, Canada, Ireland, Australia and many other countries have long recognised the Holodomor as a genocide. In May 2022, the US Congress passed a resolution recognising the Holodomor as a genocide and condemning Soviet policies that prevented the delivery of humanitarian aid and people from escaping. There are clear overtones of what is happening in current times. Germany, Romania and Moldova recognised the Holodomor as recently as November 2022, so we are fast becoming an international outlier by refusing to acknowledge the suffering of the Ukrainian people at the hands of the Soviets in the 1930s, while at the same time supporting them in their fight today.

In the war on Ukraine, as I heard during my visit, Russians have been accused of crimes against humanity. We saw evidence of that. We saw the piled-up, burned-out, shot-at cars of people who were trying to escape the Russians. Civilians were slaughtered as part of what Russia is doing to Ukraine. We must give confidence to the Ukrainian Government and the international legal order that the UK Government and Parliament will not stand for abuses of human rights and war crimes. We can do that by recognising where genocide took place. Indeed, that may be important in the future. I raised this matter with the Foreign Secretary in the House in February, and he noted that Putin has himself said

“that his intention is to eradicate the whole concept of Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 20 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 60.]

If that is not genocide, I do not know what is.

A final reason why it is important officially to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide is because of our Ukrainian communities in the UK. Since February 2022, thanks to the generosity of the British people, those communities have increased exponentially in size. I know from my experience in Derbyshire that it would mean a huge amount to Ukrainians in the UK if we were able to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. I met a family on Friday who said, “Please, get the Government to recognise it. It would mean so much to the people of Ukraine.”

I therefore have two asks of the Minister. First and most importantly, will he please reconsider the official Government position that a genocide will be recognised only after a court has adjudicated on it, given the evidence that I set out, and the unique circumstances? In the light of the war in Ukraine, we need to show our support for our allies; we need to show Putin that attempts to eradicate the Ukrainian people will not be tolerated. If the US, Germany, Canada, Australia and Ukraine can recognise the genocide, we can and should, too, particularly if it can have an impact on the war.

Secondly, if His Majesty’s Government are unable to break their policy and recognise the Holodomor—I hope I am wrong about that—would the Minister be willing to arrange a debate on the issue, and a meaningful vote on it on the Floor of the House, so that the UK Parliament can at least can show its support for Ukraine, and designate the Holodomor a genocide?

Ukraine

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been crystal clear on that from the Back Benches. We await that review, but what he says has to be central. We must get it right. Obviously, we will scrutinise it in every detail. In many of the areas that have been critical to supporting Ukraine defend herself against Russia—sanctions, energy security and defence—our co-operation with the European Union has been critical—it has been critical to our support for Ukraine and, through that, Ukraine’s survival. It is more important than ever that we have strong structured mechanisms for dialogue and co-operation with our allies in Europe. That is why Labour has proposed a new UK-EU security pact that could cover deeper co-operation on foreign policy, defence, security and law enforcement.

Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable, yet the UK’s leadership in NATO could be at risk, with growing concerns over our capacity to meet NATO’s obligations in full. While 20 NATO nations have revised their defence strategies since the start of the invasion, this Government have not done so, so I ask the Foreign Secretary: will the Government commit to rebooting our defence plans, and will they halt their planned cuts to the British Army?

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I support all that has been said about the need for a long-term plan to defeat Putin and to see justice done. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we should heed the calls of not only Ukrainian civil society to provide more support for their lawyers and judges on the ground so that they can hear the tens of thousands of cases in Ukrainian courts, but the calls for psycho-social support for those Ukrainians who are going through trauma and who will need to be supported once Putin has been defeated?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Earlier last month, I spent time with women in Kosovo, who reminded me of the horrors of war and sexual violence. In their own pain, they told me about the work that they were doing to help their Ukrainian sisters at this desperate time. It reminded me of the importance of that psycho-social support and the huge humanitarian effort in which we and others must play a part, not just over the next months, but for many, many years to come.

Iran

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. It has been a powerful debate that will send a strong message to the Iranian regime about our views in this country.

I rise on behalf of my Iranian constituents and in full solidarity with the Iranian people in their fight against their repressive and abusive regime. I speak also on behalf of many constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields who have contacted me about the situation. It is breaking many hearts, as I know from people I have met in my surgeries and on the streets. I bump into people who say how much they would like me to speak out about what is happening in Iran. They have been on protests in London. They can go to those protests without fear of being kidnapped on the way, being thrown into prison, having a sham trial, and being tortured and abused, which is what so many young people in Iran are facing—even those wrongly thought to be going to a protest. It has been heartbreaking to hear those stories about people going to protests, just as young people in Putney do all the time, and suffering that abuse.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady—my hon. Friend—for allowing me to intervene. If any of us were to make a speech such as the one we have made this afternoon in Iran, we would be dead meat very quickly. We are extremely lucky to be able to speak as we do and condemn this awful regime. All I can say is that we have to make as much noise as we can to try to get rid of it.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome that intervention. I really believe that that is what we are doing in the debate today. I am pleased to be able to join Members from across the House who are united in so many ways on this issue.

On 8 January, one person was killed by the regime who had been to visit his parents’ gravestones. He was wrongly thought to be part of a protest that was taking place nearby and that resulted in him being murdered by the regime; he was sentenced to death.

The extensive use of force against protesters is horrific. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that more than 300 people have been killed in the latest crackdown by the regime, including 40 children. More than 18,000 people have been arrested and a reported 488 people have been killed. We know that the mistreatment of women has been a brutal reality for Iranian women for many years, both in Iran and overseas. That is state sanction of misogyny and murder of women on a mass scale.

I have previously spoken to support the brave women and girls of Iran in their protests and about the abhorrence of the death in police custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini. She was the same age as one of my daughters. That really brings home to me that these young people are being so brave in their protests. They are the same age as my children, who could easily face the same situation as so many in Iran. There is also the online harassment, kidnapping and execution of so many others.

Colleagues raised the 26 individuals at risk of execution without fair trial for made-up offences. I add my voice to those calling for their immediate release. One of those individuals, who has since been hanged, was 22-year-old karate champion Mehdi Karami, who had dreams of one day competing in the Olympics and won numerous medals for Iran in various competitions. Mehdi’s last words were:

“Dad, they’ve reached a verdict. Mine is execution by hanging. Don’t tell mum.”

He was a proud Iranian patriot who wanted to live a normal life and stand up for his country at home and abroad. It is just heartbreaking.

Another case raised today is that of Alireza Akbari, a dual national UK citizen who has been denied representation, denied legal process and is on death row with an imminent execution fate. His family have been called in for a final meeting. The Foreign Secretary has denounced his treatment as politically motivated. I hope to hear from the Minister about what actions have been taken by our diplomats to secure his release and to avoid his murder. We cannot stay silent.

As has been mentioned, the IRGC is destabilising the region. It goes far beyond the context of Iran, and not least to Lebanon, which I visited last year. This week, I spoke to community leaders about its current political disarray and economic collapse, fuelled in part by the actions of Hezbollah under the patronage of Iran. The Government could be doing more in relation to the ongoing abuses of human rights in Iran and the activity of the IRGC on British soil.

What can we do? First, we must continue to stand firmly against the Iranian regime. The Government’s announcement of sanctions against certain regime figures is welcome, but they should be the start of more. We must continue to ramp up our sanctions regime, bringing to justice human rights abusers from the bloody 2019 crackdown as well. I hope to hear later that the Minister has been thinking seriously about new sanctions against the regime, sanctions against the families of those already sanctioned, and how we can ratchet those up.

Secondly, we must maximise support for Iranians on the ground. For example, we could consider ensuring that all political prisoners in Iran have political sponsorships in the UK, following similar moves by politicians in Germany, which has saved Iranian lives and overturned death sentences. We need to ensure that Iranians have internet access so that they can facilitate and organise protests, and welcome Iranian refugees here with open arms. The Government should give Iranians who are fighting with their lives the options to flee and issue visas, especially to those people who have been given death sentences in Iran and those women who are leading the protests.

I end by posing five questions to the Government. First, will the Minister confirm today, as has been asked by so many Members across the House, plans to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in full in the coming days? If not now, when? The Government should move quickly to decide whether to follow the US and other countries to formally proscribe the IRGC.

Secondly, what plans does the Minister have to expand the sanctions regime to other Iranian human rights abusers, such as the then technology Minister Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi and the IRGC commander Salar Abnoush? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that now is the time to speak the truth plainly when calling out Tehran’s malign behaviour, including being bold enough to label the regime’s state hostage-taking policies for what they really are?

Fourthly, there is a large Iranian diaspora in the UK, including in my constituency, who are fearing for their family and friends in Iran and in desperate worry because often they cannot hear from them. However, the community is under threat here, too. Can the Minister set out what the UK is doing to ensure the safety of British-Iranian journalists and to tackle pro-Iranian extremism, which we have seen in the UK? Fifthly, what would it take for the Government to take steps to expel the Iranian diplomats here? I understand that the consequence would be the expulsion of our diplomats from Tehran. Could the Minister outline the benefit of our diplomats staying in Tehran—that would be the reason not to expel the diplomats here—but also what it would really take: what are the red lines by which we would expel the diplomats here? We cannot continue to say that this is a regime similar to others—as we have heard today, it has gone far beyond that.

The clock is ticking. Since we broke for our last recess, more innocent Iranian citizens have been executed. Every second counts. Feet dragging costs lives. Those brave souls who have stood up against the brutal regime need all the help that we can give them. I end with solidarity for the people of Iran, support for a democratic solution and to stand up for all other victims of oppressive and brutal regimes across the world. “Woman, Life, Freedom.”

War in Ukraine: Illicit Finance

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Bob Seely]

Indeed. If it is effective, I look forward to working with my hon. Friend, and potentially other Members, to see how we can bring in such a law in the UK, so that we move from freezing money to taking money and using it for a more moral purpose.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I am pleased to see this report and the recommendations in it. I have been talking to Ukrainian MPs since the visit that he and I made to Kyiv. One of the biggest issues they have raised is about not just having sanctions but having a sanctions regime that ratchets up internationally. The sanctions partnership is absolutely essential.

Just now in the House, the Prime Minister was congratulating the work done already on sanctions, but we cannot stop there. We need to move on. The ramping up of sanctions and the seizing—not just freezing—of assets are absolutely being called for by Ukrainian politicians and people.

To put into context the sums the hon. Gentleman has been referring to, right now there is a $38 billion budget gap for the running of Ukraine and billions also need to be paid back in reparations. This solution is much needed and would restore the reputation of London as a financial centre, not a money laundering centre.

[Bob Seely]

That was a brief question!

Mahsa Amini

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. There is, of course, much activity and we will continue to work to do all we can and to celebrate the UN International Day of the Girl Child, as I know many of us have done today.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

This is an important debate on the International Day of the Girl Child. Many women constituents have written to me, inspired by the protests in Iran and shocked at the murder of Mahsa Amini. I stand in solidarity with those women protesters. I have a 22-year-old daughter. She is able to wear what she chooses and to protest as she chooses. She would not be in fear of being beaten up and murdered in prison. Has the Minister considered expelling the Iranian diplomats—this cannot be business as usual—and what more would have to happen before she did so?

[Gillian Keegan]

Of course, as the hon. Lady will have heard in my statement, we have not continued with business as usual. As of yesterday, 10 October, we have announced new sanctions on senior security and political figures in Iran and the so-called morality police. We have sanctioned the morality police in their entirety, including their chiefs. We have taken some actions. We know that there will be other discussions with international partners, and obviously we keep things under review.

Strategy for International Development

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). I spent many childhood summers in Cullompton, so I know what a beautiful constituency he represents. I can see already that he will be a strong advocate for his constituents, local schools—he spotted a lobbying opportunity in his maiden speech—and farmers. He displayed an internationalist outlook, which I certainly welcome, as I am sure we all do. I am delighted that he chose to speak in this debate for his maiden speech; I think that shows real acuity. What a day, here in Parliament, on which to give his maiden speech! I look forward to following him in many speeches to come.

I campaigned, along with hundreds of thousands of people across the country, for the move to 0.7%. Many are in this Chamber now, but they are also in towns, villages and cities across the country. That decision had cross-party support and was one we could all be proud of—proud to be British, and proud to achieve 0.7% of GDP on development spending. The fact that it was cut is deeply disappointing to me, to Opposition Members and to people across the country, including many of my constituents who write to me. It is very disappointing that the 0.7% target has not been reinstated in these estimates. Achieving 0.7% was the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do—it is a false economy—to cut it to 0.5%. That diminishes our position in the world and has damaged many successful poverty-reducing, conflict-cutting and climate change-tackling programmes. There is a £4.6 billion black hole and 1,000 programmes have been or will be cut. It would be welcome if the Minister could confirm whether that is correct.

I want to focus not only on how much and which programmes have been cut, but on how the remaining money is spent. I am concerned about the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, and the fact that so much money in this strategy will be under the remit of ambassadors. I have spoken to many ambassadors and they have not had the training to spend development funds. They have been trained to be excellent diplomats and we are really proud of them. They do a great job for us around the world, but development expertise is very, very different. Will the Minister confirm that the training programme for ambassadors has changed as a result, right from selection through to achieving their positions? It needs to change dramatically if the money is to be spent in a way that achieves our aims.

Then we come to our aims. What are the aims of the international strategy? I have serious concerns that they are not clear, that they break our promises to achieve the sustainable development goals and that they are not to cut poverty.

Anyone who has followed any of my speeches will not be surprised by the two areas on which I will focus today, but I have not plucked them out of thin air. I have worked in development around the world for 25 years. I have worked for Christian Aid, Oxfam, CAFOD—the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development—and Water Aid. I did a round of the development agencies, which meant that I had the privilege of visiting many countries and seeing programmes that are funded by the British public around the world. Two key areas that can achieve poverty eradication are: tackling conflict, focusing especially on genocide prevention; and tackling climate change, focusing especially on water sanitation and hygiene.

Commitments have been made across the House and we have said many times in debates that we want to prevent genocide. We have stood here and said, “Never again,” and I am sure we all agree that this crime of crimes must be prevented. That has been highlighted this week by the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, which is being hosted by our Government and is happening now in London.

Religious persecution and the targeting of people because of their ethnicity go hand in hand, but to achieve the aim of “Never again” in relation to genocide, we need genocide prevention strategies across all the countries in which we work to predict when early steps towards genocide are being taken, to prevent genocide through peace building and to fund social and economic actions and targeted intervention to prevent it. There is a list of continuing genocides around the world and of areas where there are moves towards genocide. Our projects and programmes can make all the difference. They will not be glamorous or hit the headlines, but they will save lives in their millions.

The Foreign Secretary’s promise to restore the humanitarian and women and girls’ development budgets has been broken because of the aid cuts. Compared with the spend in 2020, the cuts include the Ethiopian budget by 90% and the Syrian budget by 64%. Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the world, has had a cut of 40% and Sudan has had a 74% cut. There is an unprecedented famine in the horn of Africa, yet the cuts to humanitarian budgets continue regardless.

Last year, the British Government made famine prevention their flagship humanitarian agenda when they held the G7 presidency, and the UK played a lead role in convening discussions on famine prevention in the UN Security Council. That is—or should be—a key feature of the international development strategy, but there is a perception that the UK risks being somewhat missing in action on humanitarian aid because of the cuts. For example, in 2017, when 16 million people in the horn of Africa were facing severe hunger, the UK provided £861 million as part of the global response. That helped to avert widespread famine. The work that was done then has helped to reduce the number of people who are facing famine, even now, in the next period of crisis. Despite that, however, 23 million people in 2022 are facing famine as a result of drought, conflict and covid, but the UK has provided—bear in mind that the figure was £861 million in 2017—£72 million to support people in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and South Sudan. This is the worst famine in that area in 40 years, yet we have dramatically cut our support. That is not what the British people want from the aid budget.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and she knows at first hand the importance of our contribution to the international and aid sector, particularly on famine prevention. My Committee has just published its report on food security, and there is so much more that the Government could do to take a strategic leadership view. However, the countries that my hon. Friend mentioned, where famine is running wild, seem to be completely off the Government’s radar and hidden. One can only assume that unless we raise the profile of those countries, this will just keep going.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. This debate has been really important in enabling us to talk about the issues, because these cuts seem to be happening quietly and in secret. If British people knew about the cuts to famine prevention and the other things going on, they would not be happy. These are not our values; these are not British values.

The House will hear no argument from me against championing women and girls, which is in the development strategy, but the budgets for women and girls are being cut and are not being prioritised. The Government are not putting their money where their mouth is. CARE International estimates that £1.9 billion was cut from women and girls projects in 2021. I would welcome any assurance from the Minister that that is not correct and that the budgets for women and girls are being protected. I would like to hear that in her response.

The international development strategy should have poverty reduction as a target, but it does not. Instead, it talks about people being “more prosperous”. It could be said that that is just semantics—putting a positive spin on poverty by talking about prosperity instead. However, I am very concerned, as other hon. Members clearly are, that it shows a move away from poverty reduction, tackling inequality, support for the most marginalised and inclusive growth, with a focus instead on macroeconomic prosperity and the hope that it will trickle down. We know that that will not work and that it risks fuelling inequality and instability. It is a move away from achieving the sustainable development goals on the interconnected issues of poverty, inequality, climate change, inclusive societies, access to health and education, and water and sanitation.

Water and sanitation is all but missing from the international development strategy. WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—is the foundation on which any development strategy should be based. There is a lot of talk in the strategy about trade, but trade cannot increase if farmers cannot water their livestock or crops. Farmers just cannot achieve very much with no water: they face ill health and poor hygiene, or have to fetch water instead of farming and being a trading actor. It is truly frightening that the Government have cut funding for WASH by two thirds between 2018 and 2021.

Water Aid is one of the most popular and well-supported aid agencies in this country. I am not just saying that because I used to work for it; I chose to work for it because I know the importance of water and sanitation. Its popularity demonstrates how obvious it is to British people and to anyone who has travelled to any of the countries we are talking about that without clean water, sanitation and hygiene, we just cannot get the other benefits to progress for girls, for trade, for autonomy and for villages and towns. WASH is a no-regrets solution: it is really good value for money, and it fast-forwards progress in gender equality, global health, climate change and so many other areas.

Let us take gender equality as an example. The focus of the development strategy is quite rightly on women and girls, but without access to WASH, millions of women and girls will miss out on school or the chance to work and will be at greater risk of poor health, violence and abuse. Every day, approximately 800 million women and girls are on their period, yet one third do not have access to clean water, female-friendly and decent toilets, hygiene facilities and sanitary materials to manage menstruation with dignity. I have met many, many girls who miss a week of school a month, and many teachers who despair. They want to do their best, but they cannot.

Women are responsible for about 60% of household water collection needs globally. Achieving universal basic water services would free up more than 77 million working days for women each year between 2021 and 2040. The gains could be huge, so I ask the Minister: what proportion of the reinstated ODA budget for women and girls will go to programmes addressing period poverty and shame? Given its importance to the education, economic empowerment and safety of women and girls globally, will the Minister restore the UK’s ODA funding for WASH?

Global health and WASH are inseparable too. The World Health Organisation estimates that one newborn baby dies every minute from infections related to a lack of clean water and hygiene. This is such a basic problem, so heartbreaking and so easily solved. More than half the healthcare centres in the world’s 46 least developed countries lack clean water or decent toilets, which is causing preventable deaths and accelerating the spread of antimicrobial resistance as health workers are forced to use antibiotics in lieu of good hygiene. If any of our local hospitals had no running water, they would close—they would not be open—but that is the situation of half the healthcare facilities in the world’s poorest countries. The Lancet estimates that 1.27 million people died of drug-resistant infections in 2019 alone, a number that will just continue to increase as antimicrobial resistance develops, and that will affect us in this country as well: we are interconnected.

The FCDO’s own analysis in December 2021 rightly recognised the importance of WASH in maternal and child health, pandemic preparedness, and building climate-resilient health systems. However, the FCDO is not putting its money where its mouth is. The financing gap preventing universal access to WASH in healthcare facilities is just $601 million annually to 2030. That is small change for all the G7 nations, working together, and the UK should be leading the way in advocating its provision. I therefore want to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing to increase access to WASH in healthcare facilities in the world’s least developed countries, and whether she agrees that it must be better financed.

I also have a little shopping list of aid programmes which I know are changing, but about which I should like some further information. These are just examples of the problems that will come as a result of the disintegration—the Government seem to be disintegrating around us as we speak, but there is also this disintegration —of what used to be the DFID budget.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) raised an important issue: why are we still funding China to such a great extent, and what are those funds for? As for Sudan, has the peace programme been entirely cut? We built up that programme over many years, and we have been funding it for so long; are there any plans to reinstate it?

In Lebanon, the UK Government had been funding a very successful landmine programme to clear cluster munitions for many years. The Lebanese Government were given a five-year extension allowing them to clear their munitions by 2026, they said they were on track for 2025—and then what happened? We cut the programme. They were so close to achieving landmine eradication. They had come so far, and we had worked so well with them, and the Lebanese military, to achieve that. Farmers could have their land back, they could grow and they could trade, but they cannot achieve any of those goals in the international development strategy without that programme, so why did we cut it?

The next item on my little shopping list is the BBC World Service, the jewel in our crown. We have built up, over so many years, a trusted service. I saw its impact in Kenya, where I was living, during the post-election violence. It was the only source of information then. It is so well trusted across the world. It is a source of huge soft power for us, and I hope to hear from the Minister that it will not be subject to any of the cuts.

The final item is climate finance. On 20 June, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said that the BEIS was surrendering climate finance underspend to the Ukraine aid budget. Climate finance underspend is climate finance which has been budgeted for, for which there are plans, which has not been spent yet, but which will be spent on very important climate projects. I do not begrudge any aid going to Ukraine, but I do want to know where the money is coming from. If we are just robbing Peter to pay Paul, what is the point of this strategy? It is not very strategic at all.

A development strategy that does not prioritise poverty reduction, conflict and genocide prevention, and WASH is not one that the British people would want to support. It breaks our promises to the world’s most vulnerable people, and it further weakens our standing on the world stage.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe: Forced Confession

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

Diplomats and civil servants within the Foreign Office have worked day and night to secure the release of Nazanin and Anoosheh, and on many other consular cases across the world.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The Minister has been asked this question twice, so I will try for a third time. Did the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister personally authorise UK officials to advise Nazanin to sign the forced confession at the airport in the way she has described, or was that decision taken by officials without their knowledge?

[Amanda Milling]

As I have made clear on several occasions now, the Iranian authorities made it clear at the airport that they would not allow Nazanin to leave unless she signed a document. As I have said, the official passed on the message to Nazanin, but the UK official did not force her to do so.