Sudan

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Dan Jarvis

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I assure him, having spent quite a lot of time with the men and women who are manning the crisis centre at the Foreign Office, that it would be wrong to suggest that their concern was for evacuating staff and not the wider public. The absolute commitment from the Foreign Office is to do everything we can for all those caught in this way, although, as I have mentioned, we have a special duty in respect of our own staff. He asked me to be more specific about numbers. I think I have been quite specific, but let me say that the published figures are about 400 for mono nationals and about 4,000 for dual citizens. He will appreciate that if someone has a British passport, they would expect to be treated in the same way whichever group they belong to. As for how many people want to leave Sudan, as I said, the Foreign Office has received registered communications from 2,000.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the comments made by the Minister and the shadow Minister about the professionalism and bravery of those members of our armed forces who have been involved with this operation? I know from my own time at PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters—that non-combatant evacuation operations can be particularly complex, so well done to everybody who has been involved. As we have heard from the Minister, the situation on the ground is that 2,000 British nationals are registered with the FCDO, potentially out of a total of 4,000. Given that Sudanese telecommunications are collapsing, can the Minister set out a bit more about what his Department is doing to explore contact with those British nationals who do not have access to either a reliable phone signal or the internet?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I hardly dare answer my right hon. Friend’s question such is her expertise in this matter. I can tell her that the UK has committed to tackling the global education crisis through the girls’ education action plan, which was set up in 2021, and through two G7-endorsed global objectives to get 40 million more girls into school and 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10 by 2026.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

In Afghanistan, women are locked out of learning and girls are shut out of school, and the recent ban on aid workers has made the situation much worse. I think that we should stand with women and girls in Afghanistan, so will the Minister confirm that there will not be any cuts to the official development assistance going to Afghanistan?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows a great deal about Afghanistan from his deep experience. He is absolutely right to say that the violation of women’s rights in Afghanistan—particularly girls’ schooling—is absolutely outrageous. We are doing everything that we can in terms of expertise, money and influence around the world to ensure that we stop it.

Afghanistan: Ban on Women Aid Workers

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the ban on women aid workers in Afghanistan.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

I wish to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for raising this important issue and for pursuing this matter in such a determined and tenacious way. He served with distinction in Afghanistan and brings extraordinary knowledge and understanding to this matter.

Since August 2021, the Taliban have imposed a series of restrictions, effectively erasing women and girls from society. The ban on Afghan women from working for non- governmental organisations represents a further violation of their rights and freedoms, and it is unconscionable.

This decree will have devastating effects. More than 28 million people are expected to be in humanitarian need in 2023. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend Lord Ahmad have been clearly and publicly stating that this ban will prevent millions of Afghans from accessing lifesaving aid. Around 30% to 40% of all staff in non-governmental organisations across Afghanistan are women. They are critical to humanitarian operations. They have access to populations that their male colleagues cannot reach, providing critical lifesaving support to women and girls. According to the UN, approximately 47% of humanitarian organisations have currently either partially or completely suspended activities as a result of the edict.

Foreign Office officials are working with the United Nations, NGOs and other donor Governments to understand the impact of the ban and ensure a co-ordinated response. We support the UN’s pause on non-lifesaving humanitarian operations and we are working closely with NGOs to ensure that lifesaving humanitarian assistance can continue wherever possible.

On 9 January, I discussed the matter with the UN Secretary-General in Geneva at the Pakistan pledging conference addressing the issue of the floods. On 6 January, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad spoke to the UN deputy Secretary-General before her visit to Afghanistan, and he is meeting Afghan women this morning. Our permanent representative in New York is engaging with other parts of the UN system to ensure that countries are unified in their condemnation of and response to the decree.

On 13 January, during a UN Security Council meeting on Afghanistan, the UK reiterated that women and girls in Afghanistan must remain high on the Security Council agenda. Our UK mission in Doha will continue to express our outrage about the impact of the ban on the humanitarian crisis and lobby the Taliban across the system to reverse their appalling decision.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the Minister; I know he takes these matters extremely seriously and has a wealth of knowledge, so I am grateful for his response to the House. He will understand the deep concern at the Taliban’s ban on women aid workers, meaning that 150 NGOs and aid agencies have had to pause their work in Afghanistan.

That severe disruption comes at just the wrong moment, as the country faces a terrible humanitarian crisis: 28 million people need aid, and famine conditions are setting in. People are dying, and more will die, without women working in humanitarian relief. Despite some minor concessions in healthcare settings, many organisations can resume programmes only with the reinstatement of women across all functions. I pay tribute to the courage of women working in Afghanistan for organisations such as Oxfam, Islamic Relief Worldwide, the International Rescue Committee, Médecins Sans Frontières, ActionAid, the HALO Trust, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Save the Children, UNICEF, the World Food Programme and many more besides.

While calling for a lift to the ban is the right course of action, we must respect the complexities of the situation. The catastrophic withdrawal in August 2021 has undermined the UK’s ability to leverage influence, but our long-standing relationship with Afghanistan is precisely why we should try to make a difference, targeting development aid, using back channels, engaging neighbours and regional partners and energising our allies.

Further to the Minister’s statement, will he say more about the conversations he and the noble Lord Ahmad have had regarding the establishment of a common position that safeguards the inclusion of women in humanitarian work? Can he say what role the Prime Minister’s special representative on Afghanistan is playing? Crucially, can he confirm that there will be no cuts to official development assistance to Afghanistan? This is not the time to reduce our support.

Sadly, our recent history with Afghanistan is underlined by passivity. There is a clear choice to make: change course now, or condemn ourselves, and the Afghan people, by repeating history again. Let us not make that mistake.

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his pertinent comments. As he rightly says, there are 28 million people in need of support in Afghanistan and the position is deteriorating. He pays tribute to the courage of women throughout Afghanistan, and the whole House will want to endorse his comments. Women will suffer from this appalling decision, but women are also critical to the delivery of aid, as both he and I have pointed out.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the work of the special representative. The special representative is fully engaged in all aspects of the Government’s policy. He stressed the importance of not reducing aid and humanitarian support and relief in Afghanistan at this time, and the Government are seized of that point. He asked with whom we are working; he will have noticed that the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation has condemned the Taliban’s appalling decision, and he may well know that Amina Mohammed, the deputy Secretary-General, is there now. She is coming in to the Foreign Office on Monday to brief us and Lord Ahmad is, as I speak, meeting leading and influential Afghan women.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

We live in a complex and multi-dimensional world, and the rate of change is astonishingly quick. In order to deal with that change, it is important that we think carefully about Britain’s role in the world. I believe that the country needs a strategy. I believe the Government—indeed, any Government—need to work out what they want to achieve in the world, and what resources they have available to them to underpin that achievement. When they have done that, they need to work out how they are going to achieve what they want to achieve with the resources available to them. Of course, unforeseen crises will always arise, but the key question is: what is our vision and our strategy?

That is not rocket science—or, at least, it should not be—but that was not apparent in respect of the strategic defence and security review of October 2010. I agree that the politics should be taken out of that process by conducting a review every five years. Governments should conduct a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the world in which we live. From that analysis, they should draw conclusions, having consulted widely. We should never tire of asking this question: what is Britain’s role in the world? We should never tire of ensuring that how we allocate the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money spent on achieving our foreign policy objectives is underpinned by rigorous analysis.

I have spoken before in this House about hard power—the controlled application of military force. Today however, I want to talk about international development and soft power—how the UK can have leverage in the world through employing the influence and diplomatic power we have as a nation, rather than the influence we could exert as a military power.

Inevitably, the balance between hard and soft power will fluctuate. That is not to say that the utility of military force has declined, but instead that the way in which it is likely to be employed in the future will not be the same as the way it is employed now or has been in the recent past. We are currently witnessing the rising influence of emerging economies such as those of the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China—which is reshaping the strategic environment in which our country operates. In this changing geopolitical environment, the way in which the UK and other countries exercise their influence in conflict, in the global markets, in negotiations and in agreements is also changing, and will continue to do so. In part, that reflects the way, and rate at which, countries are developing. Because of rapid developments in technology, the world is a much smaller place than it used to be.

Technological advances and globalisation bring many challenges, but they have also brought many opportunities to those best placed to take advantage of them. We now live in a world where, for some, luxuries such as a flatscreen TV and a DVD player have almost become necessities to ease the burden of our ever-stressful lives. However, for many millions of people in poorer countries a luxury takes the form of a decent meal or the security of knowing that their child has the same chance of survival as a child here in the UK. Although much good work has been done in recent years, much more can and should be done. So I believe this is more than a responsibility for wealthy nations; it is a moral obligation. This is about civilised societies reaching out and protecting the most vulnerable.

The UK has an excellent track record on international development. The previous Labour Government’s commitment to the provision of aid was well known, and we achieved great things, helping countries that were being crippled by debt and enabling them to focus better on domestic issues, rather than pay money to wealthy nations. That work was not perfect, it was not without risks and it was often controversial, but it was the right thing to do.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid, but they could and should have gone further by protecting that in law, as the Conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement promised. Legislation would have provided some certainty and a guarantee of funds, and it would have allowed long-term plans to be made, based on the knowledge that the resources would be in place to enable them to be fulfilled. By not including legislative protection for international aid, the Government are pandering to those who are not in favour of it. A global financial crisis is occurring, with recession having an impact on countries around the world. In this economic climate, we will all have heard people being sceptical and cynical about the value and utility of international aid, and suggesting that charity should begin at home. I understand why that is said, but in the context of trying to save a child’s life—any child’s life; ultimately, that is what aid can do—I do not agree with it. This is not just about one child; it is about many millions of children. What could anybody prioritise above them?

Just as a result of the work that has been done over the previous 20 years, 12,000 fewer children died every day in 2010 compared with the figure for 1990. Over the past two decades, the level of stunting, whereby children’s bodies and brains fail to develop properly because of malnutrition, has declined from 45% to 28%. Recent research by Save the Children shows that those countries in sub-Saharan Africa that received the most aid over the past decade also made the most progress on child well-being, so it is vital that aid is guaranteed, because famine rarely creeps up and surprises us. Investing early to prevent developing countries from slipping into famine is far more beneficial and efficient, and it is far cheaper, than responding to emergencies. Right now there is an impending famine in Niger, one than can be prevented if funds are made available in good time. The disastrous famine in east Africa was widely predicted, yet Governments around the world did not release the money in time to prevent it and millions died. The same thing is happening right now in west Africa, and few will notice until the media arrive.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

I make this point simply because the hon. Gentleman is the second hon. Member to make a comment such as that last one. The famine in Somalia was predicted, but the British Government were the first to go to the aid of the hundreds of thousands of people caught in that famine—the rest of the world was slow to do so. Will he at least acknowledge that his own Government and his own country, not least through the Disasters Emergency Committee, rapidly addressed that dreadful situation?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention. The point I am trying to make is that we should not be in the business of waiting until the media arrive before we intervene and provide funding to deliver aid. The more that we can prepare for these situations, as much as we ever can, the more efficient we will be; the best way of investing money is in preventing these things from happening in the first place.

It costs comparatively little to immunise children with the vaccines that our children in the UK rightly have for free. Each year, 7.6 million children in developing countries still die as a result of easily preventable diseases and conditions such as diarrhoea. The removal of the next generation through infant mortality—the rate is still as high as one in 10 in some regions—takes away those who will be educated, who will work and who will bring money into their communities in future years. Small sums can save many lives, and international aid not only helps those who directly receive it, but, in the longer term, has a knock-on effect to those nations that give it. A healthy society is a more prosperous and stable society, and this will bring benefits to global security and to international trade. By helping countries through aid and by ensuring that resources are distributed in a way that minimises corruption, these countries will also build their own capacity to raise money and will be able to improve the lives of their citizens.

So, it is in our longer term national interests to behave in a responsible fashion, but we should not act alone. The G8 has a vital role to play and it is essential that the Prime Minister demonstrates strong leadership on preventive action against famine and disease and on the timely release of funds to prevent predicted disasters and crises, and that he urges immediate action by the other G8 countries in committing to that. The Prime Minister must take the opportunity provided at the G8 this weekend to lead a global push on tackling hunger and malnutrition, the silent killer that is responsible for the deaths of 2.6 million children each year, not just for the benefit of those countries in dire need but for the long-term future benefit of the UK, too.