Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Ethiopia Famine: 40th Anniversary

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate at such a critical time for the security of the peoples not only in Ethiopia but across the whole region. There are high levels of humanitarian need across many parts of Ethiopia, as has been described. It is driven by climate changes, conflict, disease outbreaks and high inflation. The debate is also timely, since the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has only just returned from his diplomatic visit to Ethiopia.

I thank the Minister for his helpful response to my Question for Written Answer on the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia. I admit that I tabled it only just after he had been appointed as a Minister, so it was rather a testing time but he responded with a very full and helpful Answer, for which I am grateful. He referred to the pledging conference in Geneva in April this year, which was co-led by the UK, Ethiopia and the UN. The conference helped to increase humanitarian funding by pledging almost $630 million, including $253 million from the US and $125 million from the UK. What is the Government’s expectation of the period of time over which those countries—not just the US and UK, but others that pledged—will contribute their pledges in full?

The Minister also referred to the provision of UK support to the Government of Ethiopia’s productive safety net programme. That is welcome and should strengthen food security and resilience for the 8 million people living in extreme poverty in Ethiopia. However, is he confident that this will be fairly distributed among the different and sometimes conflict-affected regions of Ethiopia? The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the conditions in some parts of the country but, indeed, all regions are at times affected by conflict.

I note that one of the commitments made by the Ethiopian Government in Geneva was to facilitate unimpeded and sustained access for humanitarian organisations to reach affected populations throughout the country, including conflict-affected regions, and to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and assets. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about what has been happening. Can the Minister therefore give an assurance that the UK Government will focus pressure on the warring parties in conflict zones to adhere to international humanitarian law to allow access to food supplies?

The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, referred to the disastrous 1984 famine; I think all of us here are of a generation that can remember that. It meant, however, that huge progress was made around the world to tackle malnutrition and hunger, not only in Ethiopia but elsewhere. Ethiopia did indeed make remarkable progress after that famine. I had the opportunity to see some of the consequences of that progress when I went on a British Group IPU scoping visit to Ethiopia in February 2019. I went with just the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—I say “just”, but no one could say “just” about the noble Baroness, who is a force to be reckoned with; she is sadly not here today, but that is not her fault—and my then honourable friend in another place, Pauline Latham.

At that time Ethiopia was undergoing a profound political transition, set alongside economic and social transformation. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed had been in office for nearly a year and had set a fast pace of reform. He declared the end of the conflict with Eritrea; appointed women to 50% of his Cabinet posts; appointed the first ever female President; and appointed a Tigrayan woman as Speaker of the House of Federation, with whom we had a very friendly and, I would say, very feisty meeting.

We saw construction under way of a high-tech business park and of a factory for the production of Ethiopian textiles and garments. The latter was expected to give employment particularly for women, who were experiencing high levels of violence and neglect and lacked the opportunity to get legal, regular employment. Our delegation left Ethiopia with hope that there could be a positive future. Later that same year, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Fast forward one year to November 2020, and the same Prime Minister declared a state of emergency in the Tigray region and Ethiopia endured two years of conflict, resulting in the deaths of thousands and the internal displacement of millions of people.

At this stage, we still hoped there might be a way of finding peace and progress. In November 2022, an agreement on a permanent cessation of hostilities was signed by the Ethiopian Government and the Tigrayan forces. However, the World Food Programme has reported that, despite agreement in the Tigray region, intense armed conflict had erupted elsewhere. Conflict combined with projections of severe drought conditions mean that over 8 million people are expected to be at risk of food insecurity this year. The expert briefing from the organisation United Against Malnutrition and Hunger, to which the noble Baroness has rightly referred, points out that some of the progress achieved over the previous two decades had been reversed by the recent two years of conflict but also by governance challenges, disease outbreaks—including malaria, cholera and measles— and natural disasters. By August this year, an estimated 16 million people needed food assistance and approximately 4.7 million children and women required immediate nutrition assistance.

While the Minister was in Addis, I note that he was able to have a meeting with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, which the Minister’s tweet—I follow him on Twitter, obviously—reported was:

“A constructive first meeting to discuss strengthening cooperation on shared priorities: promoting economic growth; bolstering global security; conflict prevention; reducing humanitarian need”.


I was rather concerned that conflict resolution was not in that list. Was it discussed and, if so, what were the consequences?

It is encouraging that the Minister took so much of his time this summer to pay attention, as Minister for Africa, to the very areas that crucially need that attention. I know it has been well received in the countries he visited, but it also means he is able to give us a much more up-to-date report today than we would otherwise be able to get. I look forward to hearing his views on how he sees the future for that region and particularly the future for our relationship with Ethiopia.

Sudan

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has set out very clearly the challenges that are faced by every single person in Sudan. Indeed, the conflict has persisted for over a year and has escalated into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

I welcome the statement the Minister made just a moment ago that there will shortly be an announcement about the appointment of a UK special envoy to Sudan. The All-Party Group for Sudan and South Sudan, of which I am one of the vice-chairs, has long called for that, and I congratulate the Government on doing it.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of opening a short debate about the impact of the conflict on children in Sudan. Today, I will pick up on some of the themes that the Minister has rightly mentioned with regard to the challenges of securing peace in the short and long term, and the need for humanitarian support. As the Foreign Secretary said on 2 August:

“Aid must be allowed to reach those in need. Starvation must not be used as a method of warfare”.


As the UK is the penholder on Sudan at the UN in New York and Geneva, can the Minister give us a little more detail today about the steps being taken by the UK to prevent further casualties and secure a ceasefire? He has given us some information, but I think we can go further just to find out what future debates are going to be called for at the UNSC and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council.

In opening, the Minister welcomed the agreement reached by the ALPS Group talks in Switzerland last month that the Adre border crossing would be open to humanitarian aid convoys. I understand that the RSF sent a delegation but the Sudanese Government did not, despite invitations and indeed extensive international pressure. One of the official reasons given by the Sudanese Government was their strong opposition to the fact that the UAE was going to be included in the talks, because they believe the reports that the UAE is providing military support to the RSF. Can the Minister say whether the UK Government believe that the UAE’s support is indeed being given to the RSF?

The talks went ahead, with representation from the United States special envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, who made it clear that the agreements reached went beyond the opening of the Adre border, although that is of course vital, and mentioned the fact that the RSF gave commitments to implement a code of conduct among its own fighters. I hope the Minister will forgive my cynicism about the likelihood of that actually happening, given the widespread reports of the atrocities caused by the RSF, to which the noble Lord referred; sometimes we find the RSF posting videos of the killings and the rapes online, celebrating what they have just been doing in graphic detail. Of course, there is an extremely difficult barrier to achieving any success in peace, short and long term, and that is the battle between the two people who want to control the country.

It was extremely disappointing that, in December last year, the United Nations Security Council was put in an impossible position by the Sudanese Government’s formal request to terminate the mandate of UNITAMS —the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan. In the light of that, can the Minister say today what steps the Government are taking as penholder on Sudan to support the development of options for the deployment of a civilian protection mission in Sudan, in co-ordination with the African Union, the UN and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development? I know there have been discussions about this possibility. Sudanese people desperately need a respite from the warfare between those two leaders and the battle-hardened people behind them. As we know, the conflict has created this manmade humanitarian disaster.

In yesterday’s debate in Grand Committee and today, the Minister rightly referred to the increase in ODA payments—an uplift in contributions—to try to ease some of the humanitarian crisis there. I am, however, a little bit confused, because there has been a bit of a tangle about some of the announcements made over the summer and today. I do not see any problem with that; I think the Government are simply trying to make a series of announcements and that it is a case of where the money is and what it is going to do. I would be grateful if the Minister might untangle that, and if he is not in a position to do that today, I would of course be happy with a letter to me, which could be put in the Library.

For example, the Government announced on 22 August that they will provide

“£86 million in vital life-saving support for vulnerable people in South Sudan, Sudan and Chad to … Save lives … Tackle food shortages … Prevent gender-based violence … Assist displaced communities to adapt to the impact of flooding”.

Those are all vital and all huge efforts. How much of that is actually going to Sudan, considering that other countries are mentioned in that? In addition, does that £86 million include within it the £2 million in support for the 150,000 Sudanese refugees who are in eastern Libya? That extra uplift was announced by Minister Dodds on 12 July; is it part of it or in addition to it; where are we going on that? How does all that fit in with the Minister’s statement yesterday in Grand Committee about what the uplift was? I will not quote from it today—other noble Lords can look at it—but it does not quite fit in with what he was saying today and earlier announcements made this summer.

Last week, I attended the online launch of the report Beyond the Numbers: Hunger and Conflict in Sudan, published by the Norwegian Refugee Council, Mercy Corps and the Danish Refugee Council. The report is based on the testimonies from people in regions which include Darfur, Kordofan and Khartoum. It reveals the direct and indirect ways in which the conflict and widespread violations of international humanitarian law have led to suffering and starvation on a vast scale. Will Carter of the NRC made the point at the launch that not enough has been done by the international community to tap into local forms of resilience and the support from the private sector. Does the Minister agree with his view?

The report concludes with a series of significant recommendations, I shall just pick out two and ask the Minister whether the Government support them and will take action on them. First,

“the UN Security Council, the UN leadership and member states should engage in proactive diplomacy that highlights the connection between conflict and hunger, as per Resolution 2417 and the G7 Famine Prevention Compact”.

Secondly, providers of ODA should

“Support Farmers in Boosting Food Production … as the key to addressing urgent food needs and stabilising the food insecurity crisis”.


After all, the FCDO sets the strategic direction for much of the UK’s approach to agricultural development. What are the Government’s plans to take action on this when it is safe to do so?

The conflict in Sudan has received just a fraction of the media attention given to Gaza and Ukraine, yet it threatens to be deadlier than either conflict, and, as the noble Lord said, it risks undermining security in the whole region.