Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to reintroduce this Private Member’s Bill on women, peace and security. I first tabled it in 2022, but sadly it did not have time to progress to the other place before Parliament was prorogued in October 2023.
As many noble Lords know, I have long been outspoken on many of the topics that fall within the Bill and I draw their attention to my register of interests: I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security; I am a member of the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative; I am the honorary colonel of Outreach Group; and I set up, and chair, the Afghan Women’s Support Forum.
I begin by formally congratulating the Minister on his appointment. I was heartened by his response to my Written Question HL343, in which he stated:
“Empowering women and girls and preventing the conflicts that disproportionately impact on them is a key priority for this new government”.
I know that in opposition he was a champion on this agenda.
Some may question the necessity for a Bill on this. As we see the conflicts of today raging on our TV screens, especially in Ukraine and Gaza, I wonder where the women are. Why do we not hear their voices? Of course, there are many countries where other conflicts are raging that we do not see so much of in our media—Sudan, Yemen and Syria, to name but a few—with women suffering but unseen and unheard.
The foreword of the UK’s fifth national action plan, published in February last year, stated:
“From Afghanistan, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to Russian occupied parts of Ukraine, it is plain to see how conflict and insecurity have a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Too often women are also locked out of efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts, and build peace”.
While generally the UK has been robust on this agenda, at times there has been slippage. Enshrining this in law will mean that the women, peace and security agenda is in the DNA of all foreign and defence policy, is not dependent on ministerial good will and cannot be ignored. The Bill puts into law the commitments that the Government have already signed up to under UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the subsequent 10 UN Security Council resolutions on the WPS agenda. It is not asking for a new or onerous commitment.
The ground-breaking UN Security Council Resolution 1325, introduced in 2000 with much support from the UK, recognised the terrible and disproportionate effects that conflict has on women and addressed this through its four pillars of prevention, protection, participation and relief and recovery. This and the subsequent UN Security Council resolutions around the subject have tried to address the situation, but we all recognise that this is still a work in progress, with much more needing to be done. Progress has been too slow.
Today more than ever, many women are experiencing a devastating rollback of hard-won rights, services and democratic freedoms—from abortion rights in the US and rape used as a weapon of war in Ukraine, to the gender apartheid in Afghanistan, with the Taliban issuing over 50 edicts to suppress women’s and girls’ rights, returning to the oppression of the 1990s and, most recently, making it illegal for their voices to be heard in public.
The UK’s work around women, peace and security and preventing sexual violence in conflict are two initiatives where the UK has led the world. As Britain continues to redefine its role in the world in the wake of Brexit and the pandemic, it is a time to build on all the investment and good work that has gone before and fight the growing challenges to gender equality. The Bill that I propose today is another tool through which we can demonstrate our commitment and, more importantly, implementation of our promises in this area.
With only two clauses, this short Bill seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will have a duty to have regard to the national action plan on women, peace and security, which we are committed to under UN Security Council Resolution 1325. Clause 1(2) requires an annual report to Parliament on progress in relation to the national action plan. This would formalise what the department currently does and would not create extra reporting burdens.
Clause 1(3) does what it says on the tin and puts in place the key duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the NAP when “formulating or implementing” government policy “in relation to foreign affairs, defence or related matters”.
Clause 1(4) stipulates several considerations for which the Secretary of State must have particular regard. For example, paragraphs (e) to (h) cover issues around peace processes. Data from the Council on Foreign Relations show that roughly seven out of every 10 peace processes from 1992 to 2019 did not include women mediators or women signatories. Of 18 peace agreements reached in 2022, only one was signed or witnessed by a representative of a women’s group or organisation. In 2022, women participated as conflict party negotiators or delegates in four of five active UN-led or co-led peace processes. However, women’s representation stood at only 16%, a further drop compared to 19% in 2021 and 23% in 2020, all of which remain well below the peak of 37.1% in 2015.
Evidence that gender equality is essential to building peace and security has grown substantially since UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was introduced. In fact, involving women increases the chances of a longer-lasting and more sustainable peace, yet they continue to be excluded.
We live in a globally interconnected world. War zones are poor zones. The Institute for Economics and Peace estimates that every $1 of peacebuilding would lead to a $16 reduction in the cost of armed conflict. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has said that there is a
“direct relationship between greater investment in weapons and greater insecurity and inequality for women”.
Sadly, it is apparently not obvious to many that you cannot build peace by leaving half the population out: look at Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. We should not have to justify women being included; we should ask the men to justify their exclusion. Ambassador Barbara Woodward at the UN Security Council highlighted the importance and value of women’s economic inclusion for maintaining peace and stabilising peace in post-conflict settings. She argued for
“gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow”.
Paragraphs (d) and (i) of Clause 1(4) relate to conflict-related sexual violence. Do noble Lords know that none of the ceasefire agreements reached between 2018 and 2020 included gender provisions or the prohibition of sexual violence? Gender-based violence is one of the most systemic and widespread human rights violations of our time, with one in three women worldwide experiencing physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime.
There were 2,455 UN-verified cases of conflict-related sexual violence in 2022. We all know that there is much underreporting, so the actual figures are hugely more. Gender-based violence is rooted in gender inequality. It threatens the lives and well-being of girls and women and prevents them from accessing opportunities that are fundamental to both freedom and development.
The Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative was inspiring, and I welcomed the conference held under the Conservative Government in 2022. This initiative was always going to be a marathon, not a sprint. More than 50 countries and the UN signed the UK-led declaration, and 40-odd made national commitments outlining the steps they would take. Do the Government have any assessment of how all those commitments are progressing?
After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, reports of sexual violence committed by Russian soldiers against civilians escalated. In the DRC, sexual violence continues to rage, and I recently had the honour of meeting the inspirational Dr Mukwege, who told us that 83,000 brutally raped women and girls had been repaired at Panzi Hospital, with ages ranging from five into their 80s. Sexual violence occurs in every theatre of war. Including these stipulated considerations in the Bill will help keep conflict-related sexual violence front and centre of our diplomatic, security and conflict work. Meanwhile, the wording of Clause 1(5) ensures that the UK will also seek to keep the pressure up on all these issues when working with other multinational organisations.
It is not enough to pledge our commitment to the women, peace and security agenda without delivering meaningful change for all women and girls on the ground, living through the daily realities of war. As I have said before, we must not fall into the trap of mistaking process for progress, status for impact, or rhetoric for action.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will not mind me gently reminding him of his words from the Third Reading debate on the Bill last July, when he said:
“Things do change and Governments change. Hopefully, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and I can work together to ensure that the sort of changes she is advocating become law”.—[Official Report, 14/7/23; col. 1981.]
I trust he is not going to dash my hope this afternoon.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
Next year is the 25th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the 30th anniversary of the Beijing platform for action. I believe that the Bill is the perfect tool to demonstrate to the international community the UK’s commitment and leadership on this agenda. Passing the Bill will legislate for all future Governments our commitment to have systematic gender consideration and responsiveness in UK foreign and defence policy. By sealing this agenda into legislation, the UK can be an example and encourage other countries to follow suit.
I hope that Members from all sides of this House can support and work with me to make the Bill a reality. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on her Private Member’s Bill, which I heartily support. Over recent years I have had the privilege of working closely with the noble Baroness on issues concerning violence against women and girls both domestically and internationally. I draw attention to my own entry in the register of interests: I am the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. I am also on the task force on war crimes for Ukraine and co-chair the task force set up to recover the children who have been taken into Russia without consent.
IBAHRI has held a number of parliamentary inquiries, provided the secretariat and written the reports concerning a number of the most horrifying situations affecting women. Noble Lords have already heard about them from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and I am not going to rehearse them again, but we need to have as a constant in this House the fact of what is happening in Afghanistan. It was a shameful business that we withdrew from Afghanistan, and many women who had taken up positions that were clearly an affront to the Taliban were placed in dire straits and mortal danger.
Afghanistan now is perhaps the most dangerous place in the world for women. They have been banned from public life and cannot receive an education, work or have recourse to justice. Healthcare is very limited. Recent decrees have banned women from speaking outside the home and singing even inside, if it can be heard outside. There is no singing, and basically no life.
Between 1 January 2022 and 30 January 2024, Afghan Witness, with which IBAHRI works closely, recorded 700 claims, all of gender-based violence suffered by hundreds of women and girls throughout the country. Those are the ones that have been reported. Of course, the shame and stigma associated with sexual violence and abuse are often a restraint on people making any kind of complaint to anybody. These complaints have been reported by social media users, journalists, activists and media outlets in touch with women there. At IBAHRI, we are one of those organisations.
We have held an inquiry here into what should be clearly described as gender apartheid. There is already the crime of gender persecution, and that is certainly going on in Afghanistan, but gender apartheid goes much further. It affects all women; it is institutionalised. That is one of the shameful and shocking things about it.
A similar sort of thing goes on in Iran. We looked closely at the problems facing Iranian women; noble Lords will know about the demonstrations of the many young women who took to the streets after the murder of a young woman. We have been working with the women lawyers who have acted on behalf of people seeking to exercise their rights, and the women lawyers—as well as their clients—end up in jail. We are seeing this happen worldwide.
I want to make a number of basic supportive comments with regard to the Bill. We need to resist and prevent these things happening, because it is now understood that there is invariably sexual violence in war. I can hear the Whip’s coughs, but I want to complete this thought. It is vital that we provide assistance. There is a global piece of work being done by the Global Survivors Fund—for example, in Ukraine—to provide supportive work and therapy for women who have suffered this, because you will never be able to take those cases to courts unless the women are able to have their trauma dealt with. I ask the Government to consider supporting the Global Survivors Fund.
Finally, we have to have women at the peace tables. I strongly urge that we do not have meetings with the Taliban where there is no woman present because the Taliban insist on it. It is unacceptable. It has already happened a number of times when our Government have done that, and it should not be taking place.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and her work over many years. Your Lordships have already passed an earlier version of her Bill, and I am sure we will do so again.
As the noble Baroness so cogently laid out, women and girls are disproportionately impacted by conflict, and conflicts are on the rise. Climate change and the migration that it is driving—which is likely to intensify —adds a further threat. Poverty has always rendered women and girls particularly vulnerable, and we know that rape is used as a weapon of war. Internationally, it has been recognised that women have too often not been involved in peace processes, which the UN has sought to address through Resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions, and post-conflict measures to ensure that, as in Rwanda, women are well represented in parliament.
It is an ongoing struggle, as we have heard. The Bill seeks to ensure that the UK leads in promoting the participation of women in peacebuilding, conflict resolution and prevention efforts, and in protecting women and girls from violence. The United Kingdom is the penholder for women, peace and security at the UN Security Council, and it is therefore right that we take a leading role on this issue.
There has been some criticism of the UK’s efforts in this regard. The merger of DfID with the FCO was a major distraction, and NGOs report that short-term planning focuses on immediate relief rather than the long-term resilience needed to build sustainable peace. That reflects why it is worth putting the Bill into place.
We also see absolutely the lowest depths in Afghanistan, as we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Hodgson. We heard this morning about the treatment of a woman in Iran, who is in a clinic because she would not wear a hijab. We also face an escalating backlash against women’s rights and gender equality, as we saw in the American elections. We know about the right-wing push-back on sexual and reproductive rights, and the way in which such groups are actively curtailing women’s rights in Africa. What will now happen with the US programmes? Trump took them backwards in his previous Administration and looks set to do so again. Respecting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls is vital to their overall position.
Even the annual meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women has to battle every year not to go backwards. Can the Minister outline how SRHR is addressed in conflict situations? Can he assure us that the UK still adheres to the principle that abortion services should be offered in cases where international humanitarian law trumps local laws—for example, where a woman has been raped in conflict? We established that over a decade ago and I trust that our policy on this is unchanged. Can he update us on what support is being given to women and girls in Afghanistan? We also hear terrible stories from Sudan, so can he update us on what support is being provided there? What support, if any, is being offered to women and girls in the terrible conditions now pertaining in Gaza?
I wish the noble Baroness success with her Bill. I hope that she will see it speed through the Commons. As a result of what she said, I expect the Minister to say that the Government will now back this Bill. I look forward to his response.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I support this vital Bill and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for her dedication to women, peace and security. This legislation presents a clear opportunity to address the persistent challenges that obstruct the empowerment and safety of women, both here and globally.
Today, we live in a world where cyber threats, violence and disinformation campaigns are routinely deployed against women, especially those in leadership and public roles. This digital age, with all its potential for progress, has sadly also become a tool for oppression: women in prominent positions face unprecedented levels of harassment and intimidation, and falsehoods are spread to damage their reputations. We must consider this when drafting laws meant to protect women and uphold their roles as leaders in our society.
The women, peace and security agenda aligns closely with the United Nations sustainable development goals, particularly the principle of leaving no one behind. Sustainable peace and security cannot be achieved if half of humanity is systematically excluded. A society that sidelines women is one that deprives itself of potential stability and resilience. As we consider the Bill, we must remember that peace and security are possible only when every individual, irrespective of gender, has a stake in their community and nation.
A cornerstone of the Bill is the emphasis on participation. Women must have meaningful roles in decision-making processes, from local governance to national legislatures. The UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security rightly prioritises that. University of Cambridge researchers have recently assessed gender-based participation in 11 countries across Asia, Africa and South America. The findings revealed stark realities. As of 2022, female representation in Parliament stood at just 15% in India, 20% in Bangladesh, under 20% in Guatemala, 23% in Kenya and Malawi, and as low as 5% in Sri Lanka. Yet there are encouraging signs, too. India has now mandated one-third female representation in its Lok Sabha. South Africa has 47% female representation, and here in the UK our recent election has brought female representation to 41%. Putting the commitment of the Bill into legislation will reinforce Britain’s position as a global advocate for gender equality. This is not just the right thing to do morally; it strengthens our influence on the world stage and fosters a more peaceful, secure future for women everywhere.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill and urge others to do so as well. Let us send a clear message that the United Kingdom stands firm in its commitment to gender equality and sustainable peace.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on progressing the Bill again to Second Reading. It is an important Bill and I hope that my remarks will illustrate why.
Despite an international spotlight being shone on female participation in security and peace across the world, particularly since the UN resolutions referred to in the Bill, there has been no significant increase in the number of women participating in peace negotiations. In some areas of the world, the opposite is happening, and there has been a concerted effort to roll back the rights of women and girls. Afghanistan is the most obvious example of that, and the House is aware of the latest bizarre diktat from the Taliban, which said that women are forbidden from listening to other women’s voices. Just when you think it cannot get any worse for women in Afghanistan, it does. I hope that we can find the time in this House to have a full debate on the plight of women in Afghanistan in the near future.
The Bill puts a duty on the Government to have regard to the UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, and an annual report must be laid before Parliament on progress made during the year. Our current action plan covers the period 2023-27. I will concentrate on the first strategic objective of the plan: decision-making and the need to increase
“women’s meaningful participation, leadership and representation in decision-making processes”.
From my own experience in Northern Ireland, the more representative the process is, the more effective it is. Involving women in peacebuilding is not just a nice thing to do; evidence shows that it leads to a greater chance of securing a sustainable peace. Indeed, empowering women to participate meaningfully—that word is very important—in peace processes makes the resulting agreements 35% more likely to be in place 15 years later. For that reason alone, having more women involved, never mind it being the right thing to do, is absolutely necessary.
There is a wealth of experience in Northern Ireland in peacebuilding and the involvement of women in the process at all levels. For good or ill, I was involved in negotiations for over two decades. Did we always get it right? Of course not, but, as my bishop reminded me at our Remembrance Day service last Sunday, diplomacy rarely succeeds on the first, second or third occasions; it needs patience, resilience and the ability to look for a chink of light, however small. I am pleased that the fifth national action plan references the need to highlight and better champion the UK expertise of women peacebuilders in Northern Ireland. There are many great examples of women in Northern Ireland not only helping to make agreements happen but fighting for and sustaining better relations, understanding and reconciliation.
Peacemaking is not an event. It is a continuing process. I want to highlight just two examples of the continuing work of women in Northern Ireland; they show, I think, the experience that we have. The first example is Kilcooley Women’s Centre in Bangor, County Down. This group is made up of women wanting to make a difference in a pocket of deprivation in an otherwise affluent area of North Down. They work with children and their mothers from as early on as possible; in doing so, they make a real, positive difference.
One of those who was heavily involved in the group was Gina Murray, a straight-talking, proud, working-class woman who, through no fault of her own, had tragedy visit her in a devastating way. Gina’s daughter, Leanne, was one of the nine victims of the no-warning IRA bomb that exploded on the Shankill Road in October 1993. Leanne was just 13 years old. That incident devastated many families. Gina struggled and campaigned for justice for the rest of her life. However, she refused to allow her personal loss to define her; instead, she put her energy into the women’s centre in Kilcooley. She was an effective advocate. I fondly remember many meetings when she was not afraid to put her point across. I am sad to say that Gina passed away early last month; I want to remember her as a campaigner for justice, not just for her beloved daughter but for other victims of violence, whether domestic or terrorism-related.
The second example is the First Steps Women’s Centre in Dungannon, County Tyrone, where local women work with newcomer women and provide them with support, such as English lessons, language classes and job interview support. The work that goes on there should be recognised.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to take the national action plan forward—in particular, having more women involved in peace negotiations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the return of this Bill—the sequel. Let us hope that it does not need a trilogy. I hope that the Bill will carry the full support of your Lordships’ House, including that of the Minister. It is of immense regret to me that we were unable to see a previous version of it complete its journey through the legislative process but, at this juncture, I congratulate and commend my dear and noble friend Lady Hodgson on her perseverance in bringing it forward once again. My noble friend knows of my personal commitment previously, as today, and of my full support for both her efforts and this Bill. I am sure that the Government will ensure its secure passage on to the statute book.
I say this to the Minister: I know that arguments against the Bill may be presented. He may ask whether it is the right vehicle. To my mind, it is. He may point out what officials have said to him previously about the Bill possibly limiting or hindering the UK’s ability to progress this agenda on the world stage. To my mind, it does quite the opposite.
On a few occasions when I was Minister of State at the FCDO, I learned about the real, positive ability of challenge—challenge to officials and, at times, even to the person who sat above me: the Foreign Secretary. Why? Because it is absolutely the right thing to do. Let us be clear: the provisions of this Bill are the policy of successive UK Governments. They are a statement of aspirations while highlighting the UK’s strong leadership on this important agenda over many years, which has, as my noble friend Lady Hodgson said, seen real momentum since the passing of the landmark UN Resolution 1325.
Turning to the Bill itself, I want to be practical. Clause 1 incorporates the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, and encompasses UN resolutions. I give a tick to that; there are no objections. Secondly, the Bill talks of annual reporting—a personal bugbear of the Minister when he was in opposition. I know that he loves annual reporting, so there should be no objection to that either. Thirdly, there is a requirement for Government Ministers to have regard to the NAPs. Seeing how much time the FCDO and the MoD spend working together to deliver them, that seems like absolute common sense to me.
The Bill seeks to enshrine the strengthening of human rights, especially for the most vulnerable women and girls. I give a tick to this as well. I know that the Minister shares the same sentiments, focus and priorities around conflict-related sexual violence, where the UK has led the way. On tackling impunity and stigma, the UK has led the way; my noble friend Lady Anelay, whom we shall hear from later, introduced measures on it. The UK has also led the way on protecting and safeguarding the collection of evidence. I remember introducing the Murad code at the UN Security Council, together with the incredible, courageous Nadia Murad. On working with survivors and putting them at the heart of our approach, the UK has led the way. We have heard about the great work of Dr Mukwege. We have been absolutely committed to staff training, women mediators and peacebuilding. I recall launching the Women Mediators across the Commonwealth network. We have seen people such as Mossarat Qadeem, who went into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to take on the Taliban and extremists. She met the mothers and stopped suicide bombing—a real deliverable.
There is nothing in this Bill that cannot be supported practically. It enshrines government policy and the strategic direction of travel. Importantly, it puts our collective commitment, notwithstanding the desires and focus of the Minister—indeed, of all of us—on a statutory footing. If any provisions need to be amended, notwithstanding her valiant efforts, I know that my noble friend Lady Hodgson stands ready. I stand ready —indeed, we all do—to support the Minister in ensuring that we can make those amendments to make this Bill fit for purpose. There is nothing in the technical elements of the Bill that should not be taken forward.
I have some final comments. Four months into the tenure of the new Government, I implore the Minister, who I know is supportive, to ensure that the Government do the right thing and support my noble friend’s Bill. Ultimately, this Bill does the right things: ensuring that women are at the heart of ending conflict; preventing conflict in the first place; standing up for the brave survivors of sexual violence; and, ultimately, furthering the cause of our collective desire for peace and security. Today, the Minister can show that the Government support those things and let the UK lead the way once again.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the absolutely expert contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad; I agree with everything he said. I join the universal commendations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on both her tenacity and practicality in bringing this simple but important Bill forward.
I also commend the noble Baroness’s timing because, last night, I was at the Magnitsky Human Rights Awards here in London, as a number of noble Lords taking part in this debate were. We heard personal tales of enormous courage and conviction from women and men who are doing so much to fight for peace and security in their communities. It is a struggle, of course. Such awards can mark only a few people. So many women and girls around the world show that same courage and conviction. This Bill is a humble but important recognition of that fact; I join the call saying, “Surely the Government can accept this Bill”.
There is an important point to make about the Magnitsky Human Rights Awards and, indeed, the whole existence of Magnitsky sanctions. They were driven by civil society. The leadership did not come from Governments, as is the case in so many areas of human rights: Governments follow where civil society and campaigning women and men lead. This Bill is a way of ensuring that those voices can be heard.
In conducting this debate at this time, I must, in talking about women, peace and security, talk about the situation in Gaza. The figures out this month from the UN Human Rights Office state that close to 70% of the victims verified by it were women and children. This is in the context of what the office has described as “unprecedented levels” of international rights violations. Just yesterday, the UN Special Committee said that Israel’s policies and practices in Gaza are
“consistent with the characteristics of genocide”.
I cannot see how the national action plan can possibly be congruent with continuing any arms sales to Israel.
I turn to an issue that has not yet been raised but must be—it is an issue of long-term interest for me—which is the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Nearly 6 million people have been killed there since 1996 and it has the world’s largest population of internally displaced persons: 7.1 million people. The province of North Kivu is particularly impacted; it is an area of massive long-term violence against women and girls, in particular sexual violence. I note the MSF report We Are Calling for Help, which acknowledges that 2024 saw a marked increase in violence. I want to make a quick point, which I will come back to: the conflict in that area is driven by the fight for control of the important raw minerals tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold, which are collectively known as 3TG.
The national action plan does not seem to square with the Government’s approach in the UK strategic defence review. As I have said in other contexts, it separates out the issues of defence from the broader issues of security, when they surely have to be considered together. As the NGO Rethinking Security has commented, we live in a world
“of complex interconnected crises from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa”.
For the sake of women, girls and everyone, we need a much greater focus on de-escalation.
Finally, I come back to two points. Parliamentary scrutiny can very importantly join up connections and make connections that a siloed Government might not. The Minister might not have thought about the action plan that we are discussing here and the action plan on antimicrobial resistance, but I point to the World Health Organization’s recent guidance on the key gender disparities in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of drug-resistant infections. I also point to the need to join these issues up. I mentioned the issues of IT and the DRC. Recently in your Lordships’ House we debated the digital assets Bill, and I was the only female speaker. We need to ensure that women are always in the room for all these issues relating to peace and security.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on reintroducing the Bill and campaigning over many years on this issue. I declare my interests as in the register. I would like to pick up on a couple of points made in the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the children stolen from Ukraine by the Russian army and the Russian authorities. This is a very good example, right here and now, of why we need to ensure that passionate, caring voices are engaged in any negotiations that are taking place to bring an end to the conflict. If the men dominating the discussions in the White House and those engaged in Moscow dominate the discussions on what might or might not bring an end to the war in Ukraine over the coming weeks and months, I am certain that those 20,000 children will remain in Russia, a country in which they do not belong, with their Ukrainian identity removed, and will not be returned home wherever the lines are drawn on the map. We, as the United Kingdom, should be standing up for those children and insisting, with other European partners, that they are part of any deal that is reached to bring an end to that conflict. Last week I held a screening here in Parliament of a brilliant new documentary film, “After the Rain”. I hope that it gets an Oscar nomination but also that many thousands of people see it and raise their voices over the coming weeks.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, on raising the important issue of women in negotiations. Other Members of your Lordships’ House have raised that in the debate as well. I have had the pleasure, over the last 10 years, to be actively engaged in the Bangsamoro peace protest in Muslim Mindanao in the Philippines. I believe that was the first peace agreement in the world where the negotiations were chaired by a woman peace negotiator. She is from Malaysia and still engaged to this day. That process has continued, with some outstanding women involved in the Bangsamoro interim parliament that is building the institutions that will secure the peace process for the future. That is a good, concrete example of why having women involved not just in negotiations but in the implementation of peace agreements is so critical.
When I first heard about this Bill, I had some reservations. I am not one for legislating for the sake of it. When I hear about a Bill that will just legislate for things that we are doing already, I worry that perhaps we are overdoing it. But I have become convinced over these last few years, since the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, first made the proposal, that this Bill is essential. I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said. He was a powerful champion of these issues inside government and clearly will be a very energetic and demonstrative advocate for them on the Opposition Benches.
There has been too much inconsistency on this over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was consistent, but his colleagues were not. We have seen support for conflict prevention and peacebuilding from the United Kingdom diminish and reduce over the past decade. The noble Lord, Lord Hague, built on the good work done by the previous Labour Government, but in the past decade the budget has been reduced. The proportion of the budget being spent on conflict prevention and peacebuilding has been reduced. The references and the energy that we have given to this at the highest levels of the UK Government have been reduced, and I have a slight suspicion that above the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who I believe is very passionate about these issues and will do his very best, there are still some issues on this with the new Government, if the rumours about the reductions in the Integrated Security Fund are true.
We need to put these measures into legislation and ensure that Governments are forced to report, act and have regard to this, regardless of the personalities who hold the positions around the Cabinet table. This Bill has my full support.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on introducing her Bill. She was at ABColombia’s meeting last Wednesday, as I was, so she will know what I am going to say.
Colombia is a country that has suffered for decades from war. Women have disproportionately suffered. In 2016 peace accords were introduced, and they have held though several years and several elections. The UK has been very supportive of that process both morally and practically. I was pleased on Wednesday to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, who spoke about her recent visit. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who is about to speak, has also been very involved with Colombia. But why has Colombia been omitted from the national action plan of the 12 focus countries? Although it is not currently at war, the peace accords are still very fragile and I feel that it deserves to be one of the 12 focus countries so that we can continue with that support.
The second issue that the UK could rectify to help Colombia and the peace accords is to terminate the UK bilateral trade investment treaty, which comes to the end of its first 10-year term this year. You would think that a bilateral investment deal would help to diversify opportunities for Colombians away from coca. Some time ago I was fortunate to be part of a parliamentary delegation to Colombia, which was particularly concerned to see how that diversification could take place and what challenges rural areas faced in finding other economic opportunities. Such an investment agreement sounds helpful, but the reality has turned out to be very different. UK companies, particularly the mining companies Glencore, Anglo American and others, have used this deal very cynically. They have challenged Colombia on environmental issues, the human rights of indigenous people, human rights generally and minimum wage legislation. Whenever they find that Colombia is trying to protect its environment or people in ways that inhibit their wishes, they use the investor-state dispute settlement to sue. Last year Colombia’s pending ISDS claims totalled more than $13 billion. That money is desperately needed to further the peace accords. The country wants to invest in rebuilding in line with those accords, but this treaty is draining the resources that are needed to do so. Next week the Government’s Trade Minister is visiting Colombia. Will he join with the Colombian Government in terminating this agreement? At last Wednesday’s meeting we heard from the ambassador that that is what Colombia wants too.
We should support Colombia in every way possible. Those two simple measures would really help in that process.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hodgson on getting through the ballot and bringing forward the Bill today. Like the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I am not one for having legislation just for the sake of it when commitments have already been made; but, also like him, I strongly support the Bill, because the strength of it is that, for the first time, it will make sure that commitments are future-proofed.
The UK has a proud record of supporting this agenda. It has done so for many years, including by setting up a network of women mediators—work in which I was involved some years ago when I was Minister at the FCDO and the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict. The Minister will know what is coming next. I ask again whether he can today give us some indication on when the Government will announce the appointment of a new Prime Minister’s special representative.
My noble friend’s Bill is similar to its previous iteration but not the same. I note the additions to the text in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (g) of Clause 1(4). I do not object to those at all—far from it. All my noble friend’s additions to the text improve the clarity of the need to have regard to the range of support for gender equality obligations in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, reparation for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, and training for all staff on peacekeeping missions, which should include human rights, women’s rights and gender-based rights. When I was at the FCDO, I had the privilege of visiting many peacekeeping missions across Africa—how I wish the word “many” did not have to be there. When the Minister responds to this debate, I would be grateful if he could update the House on the progress the UK has made in ensuring that the peacekeeping troops have such training.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson has steadfastly led the way for Back-Benchers to be kept informed on all these issues and to meet, listen to and, above all, learn from survivors of conflict and gender-based violence. I am most grateful to her. My only question relates to the drafting of Clause 1(4)(e), which is exactly the same text as in her previous Bill. This calls for
“systematic recognition and participation of sufficient women in delegations to support peace processes that are supported by the United Kingdom including processes led by the United Nations”.
Could my noble friend describe what “sufficient” means in this context? For example, does she intend that the Secretary of State should be permitted to use her or his discretion to decide that on a case-by-case basis, or is there another thought on that?
Earlier on, we heard from my noble friend Lord Ahmad and others about the Minister’s responses when he was leading for the Opposition on the original Bill, way back in 2003. That seems a long while ago. Yes, Governments change and I think he said, sotto voce, “Things change”. But some things do not change and one thing that does not is the absolute importance of having this Bill on the statute book. I support it.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, the admirable Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, covers not just violence to women and girls in conflict areas but also more generally, so I hope she will forgive me if I digress slightly from areas of conflict to matters in the home and abroad and to the continued and horrific practice of female genital mutilation.
I was first made aware of this shortly after joining your Lordships’ House in 2013, when the novelist Ruth Rendell—the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh—campaigned over the practice in this country. I was utterly shocked to discover that, in the UK, girls were being subjected to this torture, often with a rusty razor blade, leading to endless health issues for the rest of the victim’s life, including infertility, infection, fistulas, pain and sexual problems.
Now, there has been some improvement in this country, according to my friend Nimco Ali, the campaigner who has undergone FGM, and the real challenge probably lies in sub-Saharan Africa, in particular Somalia and its neighbours. Here, education is probably our best and most important strategy.
However, despite some welcome news on the home front, I want to warn against complacency. Because we do not read about it, it does not mean that it is not happening here. That is a reason for ongoing concern. I will give noble Lords some NHS figures, but first, a plea from the Five Foundation to the Government. In 2014, the Home Office funded a study to find the prevalence of FGM here, based on the 2011 census and other research. It showed that 137,000 women and girls were affected and that no local authority in England and Wales was free from FGM. With new census information now available from 2022, will the Home Office agree to a request by the Five Foundation, which Nimco Ali heads, to work with it to update these prevalence estimates? This project would help to inform policy on ending FGM in the UK, including to potentially help signpost where survivors could get help medical or psychological support. It would help identify the areas where FGM is prevalent.
The latest statistics from the NHS are shocking, even though they are down:
“There were 2,090 individual women and girls who had an attendance where FGM was identified in the period January 2024 to March 2024. These accounted for 3,900 attendances reported at NHS trusts and GP practices where FGM was identified. There were 945 newly recorded women and girls in the period January 2024 to March 2024. Newly recorded means that this is the first time they have appeared in this dataset … The number of newly recorded women and girls has reduced over time. This is to be expected as the longer the collection continues, the greater the chance of a woman or girl having been recorded in it previously. Since April 2015, 37,525 individual women and girls had an attendance where FGM was identified”.
So, by any measure, we simply must not sit back. We must continue to pursue anyone committing and facilitating FGM, and continue to make the practice unacceptable in communities where it happens, through discussion and education. I hope that the new Government will endorse these sentiments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, who spoke so clearly on that issue. I declare that I am a volunteer chair of the UK board of the peacebuilding charity Search For Common Ground, which works in this area, and for two years I have supported a project that supports women peace activists and those seeking to be political actors in Lebanon. The project particularly supports the very brave women in the Bekaa Valley who have sought to throw off the yoke of Hezbollah authority and whose facilities in the area have now been bombed by the IDF, contrary to international humanitarian law.
This is a bittersweet debate, because I was introduced in this House on the same day as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. She should not need to be campaigning so powerfully on this issue over 11 years, but we are very glad that she is still doing so and maintaining the pressure on the Government and on Parliament.
It is also bittersweet because I have a degree of sympathy with the comment by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, about what we are legislating. I hold that view because of my experience of the legislation I played a small part in taking through in 2015, which has now been disregarded by two Governments. Not only has that 2015 legislation on official development assistance been disregarded by two successive Governments; the 2002 Act on official development assistance has now been reneged on. So I hope both that this Bill will go through and that it will be honoured.
Therefore, while not being defeatist, and although the advice provided to the Minister is doubtless as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, predicted, I believe that it is parliamentarians and Ministers who decide and are ultimately responsible, not the officials, who advise. I believe that this Bill should not only pass this House but have government time. The Minister can also commit not necessarily to supporting the Bill but to ensuring that there will be time for it to be debated in the House of Commons. That is the very least the Government can do.
This is also an opportunity for the Minister to clarify the Government’s structure, intent and funding for peace and security. As a result of the Budget and the appointment of Ministers, there has been a degree of uncertainty as to where peace and security, and peacebuilding funding against conflict, lie. Are they still with the Cabinet Office? Are they now fully within the FCDO? Where do they lie and what funding is being given to them? I hope the Minister will be able to provide that answer.
The Minister can also state, I believe categorically, that the Government will no longer carry out the previous Administration’s budget reductions for gender-based programmes without gender-focused impact assessments. I have not been able to determine whether the latest round of ODA cuts announced in the Budget were informed by an impact assessment with a gender lens and focus. I hope the Minister can confirm that that has indeed been carried out and will be published.
I also understand that this is the fifth iteration of the national action plan and that it is joint owned by the MoD. I could see no reference to women, peace and security in the terms of reference for the strategic defence review. If the Government are implementing what they clearly state is the commitment to the national action plan, then surely, if it is joint owned by the MoD, the fundamental review of the MoD now being carried out should include women, peace and security. It is not too late for that to be included. I trust the officials are listening to that too.
This is important now because seeking peace that can be sustained into a way of governance is even harder in the 21st century than it was in the 20th century. There is an increasing insidious level of male economic interest in conflict, either by belligerents themselves, by those who finance conflict, or by those in enabling and neighbouring countries who increasingly see state capture of technology and military industrial complexes in conflict economics. This is harder to extract, even after there has been a cessation of hostilities or a so-called peace settlement, which often simply freezes a conflict rather than resolving it. Indeed, such settlements do not remove the controlling interests of many of the belligerents, who swap quasi-military uniforms for sharp suits but still have their own interests at stake and still exclude women from future governance. There has been collective failure to ensure inclusive security sector reforms and transitional justice. Depressingly, we can add to the terrible statistic that 70% of peace settlements have excluded women, as given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson; SSR reform processes and transitional justice processes have also systematically disregarded Security Council Resolution 1325.
Another reason why the Bill is necessary is that since the noble Baroness introduced the first version of it, we have seen the terrible situations in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories and, more recently, in Sudan. I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions about those areas. I hope the national action plan, notwithstanding my noble friend Lady Miller’s comments regarding Colombia, will now actively include the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan as priority countries. If it does not, there will be a substantial problem with an action plan that will run to 2027 and that cannot adapt to what is currently the world’s worst manmade humanitarian crisis, which disproportionately affects women and girls. I hope the Minister can respond to that.
The UK is the penholder for Sudan and it will have the presidency of the Security Council, but we have seen the failed attempts of the Jeddah process, the Manama process, the Geneva process and the UN ALPS process. We have also seen IGAD and the African Union actively exclude women from these processes. These processes are happening now and the UK is the penholder, so what leverage is the UK using to ensure that any processes do not actively exclude women?
The UK is supporting the civilians. The Minister has met and supports the Tagadum civilian network. I declare an interest, in that I too have been supporting the Tagadum process. It is welcome that the Government are doing that, but women are currently being excluded from the structured processes of seeking a ceasefire and an end to the fighting. That means there is now a danger, as the noble Baroness and others have said, that unless there is an inclusive process for Sudan—as we will need to see for Gaza—the male belligerents will simply hold the next process hostage and inclusive governance will not be possible. That is why political dialogue has to be a process alongside those looking for ceasefires.
Finally, I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the noble Baroness said about quoting back to the Minister what he said in opposition. Perhaps we on these Benches can be observers of this slightly topsy-turvy process whereby only those in the Official Opposition, be they Labour or Conservative, support such a Bill. Let us turn that around and allow the Minister perhaps to say today that time will be given for this Bill, and that commitments will be given in principle to support it moving to the next stage. We can then engage in cross-party, all-party dialogue to ensure that there is at least a chance that time will be found in the House of Commons to allow the Bill to get on to the statute book, because, as we all know, it is desperately needed now.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Women, Peace and Security Bill, and join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill. As Conservatives, we recognise that national security and prosperity hinge not only on a robust defence but on the empowerment and protection of those who bear the heaviest burdens in conflict: women and girls.
The aim of the Bill, as so ably explained by my noble friend, is to secure and promote the essential role of women in peace processes, humanitarian efforts and post-conflict reconstruction. That is a noble aim and, as we have heard, noble Lords on all sides of the House support its objectives.
While it is an open question whether primary legislation in UK law is the best way to pursue these goals—a question that we look forward to addressing and supporting during the passage of the Bill—we are wholeheartedly behind my noble friend’s Bill and the principles at its core. Indeed, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure the role of women in these processes.
Today, the global stage presents us with challenges, as mentioned by many noble Lords, in various conflicts around the world that seem to grow in complexity. We witness persistent conflict, mass displacement and threats to fundamental freedoms. Many of the regions where these conflicts occur are precisely those where women are most oppressed and excluded. For this reason, I understand my noble friend’s reasons for bringing this Bill forward to the House. In an increasingly dangerous world, it is important to empower and protect those who suffer most in conflict scenarios. I support my noble friend’s Bill and look forward to the response of the Minister, particularly to my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Ahmad.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, particularly those who keep reminding me of what I said in opposition. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for bringing this Bill before Parliament, particularly for her steadfast commitment to this agenda of women, peace and security and for her dedication in championing the protection and, more importantly, the empowerment of women.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for spearheading vital work during their tenures as the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict. I shall focus on the work by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, because during his leadership we hosted the 2022 conference on PSVI and, as he said, we launched the Murad code. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their focus on this important area of work.
I want to stress—I think all noble Lords know this —that it is also a key priority for me. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I am delighted to announce today that the Prime Minister has appointed me as his special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. The global scale of conflict-related sexual violence cases is deeply concerning, with a 50% increase in the number of UN-verified cases recorded globally in 2023. In this role, I will work to galvanise international action to prevent and respond to CRSV. Sexual violence in all forms must stop, all perpetrators must be held accountable and survivors must be supported.
Let me begin by saying—noble Lords have heard me say this before—that the Government fully support the ethos of this Bill. Unlike the position that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, found himself in, I can say with confidence that the Government are absolutely committed to this agenda. This September, at the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister gave a clear commitment to work together for peace, progress and equality. Empowering women and girls is at the heart of this work and a key government priority.
The proportion of women killed in conflict has doubled compared to 2022. Levels of conflict are at the highest since World War II, disproportionately impacting women and girls. In her introduction, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, made a point about the level of involvement of women in peace agreements, and that was also highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, my noble friend Lady Kennedy and others. It is shocking that no peace agreement reached in 2023 included a woman representative or women’s group as a signatory. This is unacceptable.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I was at the Magnitsky awards last night and was incredibly moved by the tributes and the people we were saluting. She is absolutely right—guarantees for human rights are more reliant on civil society, as I have repeatedly said. This Government will remain committed to supporting civil society and women’s groups in particular.
There are good examples of supporting women’s involvement and meaningful participation in peace processes. The UK-funded Women Mediators across the Commonwealth is supporting the direct involvement of women in mediation in Niger and Sierra Leone. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, we have been committed to the establishment of the anti-war and pro-democracy Taqaddum coalition, with which over 200 women are involved.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that, in Colombia, we continue to support the Government to increase women’s participation in the ongoing ceasefire peace agreement. To reassure the noble Baroness, I say that I will be in Colombia next week and will raise those concerns, working with my colleagues in government on how we can focus on that in particular. I have a long record of supporting civil society in Colombia, and that is the key to protecting human rights for the future.
The Government are unwavering in their commitment to women, peace and security. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that it is jointly led by the FCDO and the Ministry of Defence, but we also have contributions across the United Kingdom, with Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive involvement, which has been clear from the start. No one knows what the outcome of the defence review will be, but my noble friend Lord Robertson has been involved with a range of participants in his review, including groups of women.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that the Integrated Security Fund is funding work in the Northern Ireland Office to improve awareness of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the UK national action plan, building links between Northern Ireland civil society and the national action plan. She is absolutely right to focus on those very human examples that she gave us.
On ministerial engagement on WPS, we need to show the evidence of how committed we are. In September, I attended the UN General Assembly high-level week, where, alongside my fellow FCDO Ministers, I raised the current global crises, from Gaza to Sudan and Ukraine, and their disproportionate impact on women and girls. I certainly agree with my noble friend that Russia’s deportation of Ukrainian children is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, and we continue to monitor that. We sanctioned 10 Russian officials and one entity linked to child deportations in 2023, including the Russian children’s rights commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova, and we will continue to investigate all those examples. We are very involved in—and, as my honourable friend Minister Stephen Doughty has said, absolutely committed to—supporting the people of Ukraine in their fight against Putin’s invasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was absolutely right to raise FGM. Through our programme, Support to the Africa-Led Movement to End FGM, we have been offering survivor leadership training, really focusing on getting into the communities. We will continue to do that and ensure that we can also break down the stigma associated with FGM, so that we can address the problem openly and transparently.
At the UN General Assembly—again, I am picking up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—I hosted an event on the situation on Sudan. We engaged with P5 members, but we also heard from women who were Sudanese survivors. They came to talk to the United Nations General Assembly, courageously providing crucial evidence on how we can give assistance to survivors.
On Tuesday this week, while we have the UK presidency of the Security Council, I hosted a stakeholders’ meeting in New York to discuss the appalling situation in the DRC. We opened our discussion by hearing first from key stakeholders, such as Physicians for Human Rights, on the rising number of cases of conflict-related sexual violence in eastern DRC. We focused on their recommendations for action.
In Ethiopia last month, I saw how UK aid is supporting survivors in Tigray. I met inspiring women leaders working to make a vital change in their communities. Following her visit to South Sudan, the Minister for Development and for Women and Equalities announced an additional £15 million to help Sudan, South Sudan and Chad support vulnerable people.
Minister Falconer has met Afghan women leaders to hear their perspectives and discuss the inclusion of women in Afghanistan’s future. I certainly hear what my noble friend Lady Kennedy described: what is, in effect, an apartheid policy being adopted against women. The FCDO is actively considering legal and policy questions in relation to the proposal on gender apartheid. We have also given £161 million in aid—noble Lords asked about this—50% of which is focused on women and girls. Last week, my noble friend Lord Coaker, the Minister of State, was also in Bosnia and Herzegovina working on WPS actions there, so we are absolutely focused.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked why Sudan and Gaza are not WPS focus countries. The UK utilises a focus country model to prioritise efforts and ensure that we can triage support to where it is most needed. This model is agile to ensure that where crises emerge, we can respond quickly, as has been the case for Israel, the OPTs and Sudan.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised abortion. We remain absolutely committed to adhering to abortion services, which should be offered in the cases that she described. Even where our policy trumps local laws, there is no doubt about that.
I turn now to the vital issue of the Government’s stance on the Bill. As I said at the beginning, I would like to support its ethos as we approach the 25th anniversary of the WPS agenda. The UK Government were at the spearhead at the time, as noble Lords have pointed out, and I am grateful for the focus on redoubling our efforts on this agenda. Things have moved back, and we need to refocus on it, and I am grateful that this Bill has been brought before the House for consideration. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, repeatedly told this House when I was in opposition, the Government have some reservations. It would be absolutely right for me to focus on those, but these reservations have to be seen in the light of our absolute commitment to this agenda and its implementation, so I hope that some of the things I say will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, that we will deliver what she so keenly wants.
We are delivering key principles of the Bill. We have been implementing the WPS agenda through national action plans, as noble Lords pointed out, since 2006, demonstrating strong cross-party support for the agenda. I reassure noble Lords, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that the Government support the approach and ambition of the fifth National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security and intend to build on this ambition during the 25th anniversary year, advancing implementation and focusing on new priorities. The Bill as proposed does not match our ambition—for example, taking a narrow view of participation—and includes provisions which we could not support, including potential overlap with existing legislation and conventions, and those that would constrain foreign policy.
In specific response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we acknowledge the importance of continuous training of peacekeeping forces on gender issues. The British peace support team in Africa has taken steps to support peacekeeping missions by providing training and addresses critical issues such as sexual and gender-based violence and sexual exploitation and abuse. I have met people on my visits to Africa in recent months and have seen this training in action.
I also agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Anelay, that accountability is crucial. I recall the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to strengthen engagement with this House. I reassure the noble Baronesses that I share that commitment. Following today’s Second Reading, I want to meet the noble Baroness and the APPG to discuss all the options for strengthening that sort of accountability and participation. I absolutely remain committed.
Before I hand over to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, I thank all noble Lords. This has been an excellent debate. I know that we often talk about the responsibilities of opposition and government, but I know that all of us in this House are absolutely focused on delivering on this agenda. I am proud of the UK’s work on a cross-party basis, and I look forward to co-operating with the noble Baroness, the APPG and others in ensuring its proper delivery.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their excellent contributions. I am so grateful for the strong support from around the House. So many powerful points were raised: children stolen from Ukraine, so powerfully raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell; rape as a weapon of war, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Kennedy; the necessity of women to be involved in peace negotiations, raised by the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Loomba; training for peacekeeping missions, raised by my noble friend Lady Anelay; FGM, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley; and funding for women, peace and security, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
Countries were raised too. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, reminded us of the outstanding contribution of women in bringing peace to Northern Ireland—what an example they were. There is the desperate situation in Afghanistan, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Foster—let us please have a debate on that issue. The DRC was raised by several noble Lords, Colombia was highlighted by my noble friend Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, highlighted Lebanon and the women in the Bekaa valley. Gaza, Sudan and Tigray were also mentioned. There have been too many points to mention them all.
I am particularly grateful for the strong support for the Bill from my two noble friends who were previously Ministers on this agenda in the FCDO and for the Front-Bench support from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Courtown.
I thank the Minister for his response and I congratulate him; I think we are all thrilled that he will be the special representative on the PSVI. I know his strong commitment to this agenda over many years. I am particularly grateful to hear that the Government are supporting the ethos of the Bill and to hear of all their work, but I am disappointed that they cannot support the Bill.
I would like to take up the Minister’s offer to work with him and, as my noble friend Lord Ahmad suggested, perhaps we could talk about the reservations that the Government have and see whether there is any way we could address those to stamp this into the DNA of law. Although I recognise the Minister’s commitment to this agenda, we do not want it to rest just on the good will of Ministers going forward. We need to ensure that even those who are not as keen as him will get behind it. I do not want to take up any more of noble Lords’ time, so, in the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.