Conflicts: Impact on Older People

John Milne Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate to shine a light on an important but often overlooked issue. It is strange that many of the voices who mourn Britain’s declining influence are the first to say that we should spend nothing on issues beyond our own shores, and that the 0.7% commitment to development spending was a national indulgence that we can no longer afford. However, our influence never relied on hard power alone. Our leverage in the world comes from working with others and leading by example.

That is what internationalism means, and that is why the Liberal Democrats believe that the commitment to international aid is not merely sentimental, but fundamental and strategic. It rests on the simple principle of equality: that we help those who need help most. I will not create a league table of suffering, but some groups bear a heavier burden in humanitarian crises. Older people, especially those who are disabled, are almost always among the most affected. When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, 75% of those who died were over 60, despite older people making up only 16% of the local population. When the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami struck in 2011, 56% of those who lost their lives were aged 65 or over.

The world today is less stable than it has been in a generation. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights found that since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, older people have accounted for almost half of civilian deaths, where age could be verified. Older people, especially older women, remain at disproportionate risk, particularly in frontline areas.

Given that we know all that, it is extraordinary that the FCDO confirmed cuts to precisely the funds that support the most vulnerable groups in humanitarian responses. The International Development Committee found that FCDO equality impact assessments expect ODA reductions to programmes with a strong focus on equalities to be severe. The Committee also heard that work on disability and inclusion in South Sudan specifically will cease altogether, which will have a direct impact on elderly people.

UN figures show that more than 46% of people aged 60 or over live with a disability, and more than 250 million older people worldwide experience moderate to severe disability. In the UK, the House of Commons Library’s analysis shows that disability prevalence rises from 23% among working-age adults in the UK to 45% among adults over the state pension age, and 58% among those aged 80 and over.

Therefore, when disability inclusion funding is cut in a humanitarian response, older people will be hit twice over. It is not an unfortunate side effect; it is a foreseeable and measurable consequence. I want to press the Government on the false choice they keep presenting between defence and development, particularly in the context of Ukraine. Official development assistance budgets are part of defending Ukraine. For example, they partly fund accessible bomb shelters and healthcare adaptions for people with mobility needs or age-related conditions. If we are serious about supporting Ukraine, are the lives of its oldest citizens not part of that commitment?

Liberal Democrats reject the idea that we must choose. We have set out how defence spending can rise to 2.5% of GDP and beyond, through mechanisms such as defence bonds and a higher digital services tax on the largest technology firms—that is without hollowing out our aid budget. We advocate for the immediate restoration of ODA to 0.5% of gross national income, with a clear roadmap back to 0.7%.

The American example in this is not one to follow. USAID has been gutted by an Administration that treats development spending as something somehow unpatriotic. Within the older age group, the situation of women reveals a heightened danger. Amnesty International’s submission to the UN independent expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons documents this starkly. In north-east Nigeria, older women displaced by Boko Haram faced particularly severe discrimination and invisibility. They were often unsuccessful when they tried to petition simply to be added to food distribution lists. In Ukraine, women’s pensions are on average 30% lower than men’s, which is a consequence of shorter careers and interrupted employment caused by caregiving responsibilities. Older women also experience higher rates of disabling conditions than men of the same age, such as arthritis, osteoporosis and frailty.

As a result, older women are disproportionately exposed to poverty when displaced. The social role played by women as caregivers, as mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), means that if they suffer, the impact is felt by the whole extended family. If they are left without income, accessible health care or a place in the food queue, the people who depend on their care feel it also. If the Government want to talk about return on investment in their development spending, this is exactly where that return is the greatest. Supporting older women is not a niche ask; it is a multiplier for entire households and communities.

I am speaking for the Liberal Democrats, but of course it is not just us. Amnesty International has set out practical and deliverable recommendations. We must disaggregate humanitarian data by age, gender and disability, so that we can see who is being missed out. We must ensure that older people are not systematically excluded from livelihood and cash assistance programmes on the discriminatory assumption that they cannot work. The humanitarian inclusion standards for older people and people with disabilities, developed by the sector’s own age and disability inclusion consortium, already exist and are freely available. Will the Minister confirm whether the FCDO is using them, and if it is not, why not?

To conclude, the Liberal Democrats believe that this Government do not need new evidence to act; they need to start listening to the evidence that they already have. They need to listen to their own equality impact assessments rather than commissioning them and then quietly setting them aside, as has happened all too often in previous rounds of cuts. They need to make use of the evidence-based inclusion standards that the humanitarian sector has already built, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel—or, indeed, ignoring them altogether. They also need to restore ODA, first to 0.5% of GNI, but with a published roadmap back to 0.7%, so that the targeted programmes reaching older people, and older women in particular, are not the first thing to be sacrificed when budgets tighten. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate—the last debate of his that I contributed to was a few weeks ago on stoma care, when we managed to get some rather interesting entries into Hansard on the names that people give to their stomas, some of them quite inappropriate.

An interesting point from that debate, which connects through to this issue, is the way conditions affect older people in different ways. Translating the very specific care needs that older people with stomas have, for example, into the context of a war zone or refugee camp gives an example of how that suffering would be greatened. As always, through referencing his constituent Margaret, the hon. Member brings to life the fact that, while we often talk in broad terms about statistics and facts in these debates, each of those represents a person with their own story to tell and their own suffering.

I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution and for her long-standing commitment. I have been in a number of debates where she has spoken, and while I have a different view from her on aid spending and I support the Government’s position, I recognise that she has long-standing and very sincerely held views on this subject. Debates such as this are where those views can be exchanged, and she has remained consistent in her views and advocated for them over time.

I shall break the jolly consensus just to respond to one little point. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), brought forward the idea that we can use defence bonds as a magic answer for defence spending, and that that would avoid having to make any cuts whatsoever to the aid budget and get us back up to 0.7% without worrying. Borrowing costs are at their highest levels in decades, and the bond market is not a great place at the moment—and bonds still have to be paid back. We have not yet seen any understanding from the Liberal Democrats about how those bonds would be paid back, and how those ever-increasing borrowing costs would be factored in. The solution is not as simple as taking out a few extra bonds and then all will be fine with the international aid budget.

[John Milne]

There is no easy fix, that is for sure, but the loans are not coming from the bond markets; they are coming from British people. We are not imposing on or demanding on the bond market. That is the difference. Such bonds have been used successfully in the past.

Ukraine

John Milne Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

A number of Members have drawn attention to manufacturers in their constituencies. I pay tribute to Chess Dynamics in my constituency of Horsham, which designs and builds world-leading tracking devices—they are absolutely state of the art.

I too was in Ukraine last year and, in addition to our support, I was struck by the solidarity of the Ukrainian people and their commitment to the war—despite comments to the contrary. Does the Minister agree that, ironically, in trying to destroy Ukraine, Putin has achieved the building of a fantastic new national identity?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right, first, about the outstanding firm in his Horsham constituency and, secondly, about the impact of Putin on Ukraine. It has not built a new sense of national identity because that was strong before Putin’s invasion—as I said, Ukrainians have suffered and fought occupation by Russian forces for 12 years—but it has deeply strengthened that identity and the determination that Ukraine will remain a sovereign nation in future. Whatever briefings Putin gets in the Kremlin, he is being misled to think that he is winning. He is failing, and it is our job, with other allies, to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

Part of that is the military aid that this country has been providing to Ukraine, but it is also action on other fronts. The Government have frozen nearly £30 billion of Russian assets in the UK and imposed over 3,000 sanctions on Russian individuals, organisations and ships, including a package of 300 new sanctions announced yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. We know that Russia’s vast shadow fleet bankrolls much of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, and sanctions by the UK and our partners have already forced around 200 ships to anchor out of use. We have seen the impact on Russian oil reserves, which fell by a quarter last year, but we need to do more and shift up a gear, with our militaries playing a greater role. That work has begun.

The UK has already supported both the US and France in conducting maritime interceptions. At the Munich Security Conference, I chaired a meeting of the joint expeditionary force nations, with Defence Ministers brought together to discuss conducting further operations against shadow shipping vessels. Today, I confirm that the MOD is now leading a new joint operational taskforce to advance those plans.

After four years, weariness with the war would be understandable, but in Britain our solidarity endures. It is a solidarity grounded both in deep respect for Ukrainian courage and in clear recognition that the defence of Europe starts in Ukraine. The British people understand that the cost of conflict always outweighs the price of preventing war. Four years ago, Putin’s invasion sent inflation into double digits; indeed, our energy prices are still 40% higher and our food prices are still 30% higher, as we all daily pay the price of this war.

The British people also know that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he will not stop in Ukraine. They see the Ukrainians fighting for the same values that past generations in Britain have fought for: the right of a free people to decide their own country’s future. Like the Father of the House, I am proud that Britain remains united for Ukraine, I am proud that President Zelensky calls us one of his very closest allies and I am proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine, started under the previous Government and stepped up further under ours.

Let me end where I began, by paying tribute to the people of Ukraine. Four years ago, we all remember those expert commentators largely being in agreement: Kyiv would be captured, Zelensky would flee, the Ukrainian command would collapse and a pro-Russian regime would be installed while the world watched on. If this war has taught us anything, it is never to underestimate the will of the Ukrainian people. They remain outnumbered and outmatched in every domain, and yet they have recently retaken territory, they continue to strike deep into Russia and, in some parts of the frontline, over 25 Russians have been killed for every Ukrainian life lost.

After four years of this brutal Russian aggression, of unbreakable Ukrainian courage and of enduring solidarity with those who stand with them, this must be the year that peace is agreed. Our UK promise to Ukraine is this: we will keep up the pressure on Putin; we will stand by and support the Ukrainian armed forces; and when peace comes, we will help secure it and ensure that it lasts.

Venezuela

John Milne Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

That is why the alliances we stand up for today are ones that are based on our values and on long-standing rules and relationships. That is what the NATO alliance is—it is based on our values and is immensely important. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that he disagrees with the NATO alliance, which has been the cornerstone of our security for a very long time.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

This Government have bent over backwards to not criticise President Trump directly, but that only makes him think he can get away with more and more. If President Trump really does invade Greenland, it is the end of NATO and the end of the special relationship, so will the Foreign Secretary accept that the best way for us to protect Greenland today is to explicitly say that President Trump is indeed acting outside international law?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman wants to draw equivalences between a whole series of different situations. We have been very clear about our view on Greenland.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

18. What steps her Department is taking to support Ukraine.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

19. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of US foreign policy on Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

The UK continues strongly to support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in the face of continued Russian aggression, including appalling strikes against civilians this weekend. Last week, the Prime Minister convened the leaders of the coalition of the willing, who welcomed US efforts to seek a just and lasting peace. Tomorrow, I will join other NATO Foreign Ministers and reaffirm UK support for a strong and sovereign Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been clear throughout that, first and foremost, the future of Ukraine is for Ukrainians to decide. That means, as the Prime Minister said last week, that borders should not be changed by force. There must also be a sustainable peace, and not just an opportunity for Putin to pause and then come again. That would be a threat not just to the security of Ukraine, but to the security of Europe.

[John Milne]

A lasting peace in Ukraine can only be achieved if we remove the incentives for war. However, President Trump’s initial peace plan—badly translated as it was from the Russian—included such measures as a dramatic cut in Ukrainian army manpower, the surrender of key fortress positions, a pledge never to join NATO, and an open door to Russian propaganda across the whole of Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree that peace on such terms would only encourage Putin to resume war in a few years’ time, on much stronger terms than today?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Prime Minister addressed some of those points last week. Initial proposals were published; as he said, some of those proposals were clearly unacceptable, and there have been considerable discussions since then, including in Geneva and in the US between the US and Ukraine. Those discussions have been important, and we continue to support Ukraine. The important thing about a lasting peace is that it cannot simply be an opportunity for Putin to continue his aggression after a pause, which is why security guarantees and lasting peace arrangements are so crucial. Everyone wants to see peace, but it has to be lasting.

Parkinson’s Disease

John Milne Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In the interest of time, I will concentrate on PIP. The evidence of the past 10 years tells us that the PIP system copes very poorly with fluctuating neurological conditions. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I constantly hear of people being denied PIP even when diagnosed with some of the most severe conditions.

Reports suggest that people with Parkinson’s are more likely to be inaccurately assessed than people with any other condition. I have seen that close up. One of my constituents in Horsham had Parkinson’s for 30 years, yet continued to be denied PIP. Nationally, over 430,000 people are stuck waiting for PIP reviews, causing delays of £24 million a month in essential support payments. We are seeing the opposite of overdiagnosis: almost 302,000 PIP decisions have been overturned on appeal in just two years. That is not an occasional error; it is evidence of a system failing on an industrial scale. I very much hope that the forthcoming Timms review will operate in a genuinely collaborative way, as promised, to put this service on a stronger footing.

When support is denied, people lose their mobility, their independence and their ability to keep working; they fall into crisis, end up in A&E, or even worse; and all of that comes at a far greater cost to the state than if we had supported them properly in the first place. Cutting support does not necessarily save money; it simply shifts the burden on to hospitals, social care, carers and families. People with Parkinson’s deserve dignity, independence and a system that understands their condition. Let’s give it to them.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am, of course, very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. The whole House knows that we have advised against all travel to Iran for some time, and we have been clear that our ability to provide consular assistance in Iran is very limited for those reasons, particularly given the temporary withdrawal of our embassy. We would encourage those in Iran to be in touch with the Foreign Office, and we will provide what advice and support we can.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of recognising the state of Palestine.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state at a time that has the most impact and is most conducive to long-term prospects for peace. UK bilateral recognition is the single most important action we can take towards Palestinian statehood, which is why it is important to get the timing right, so that it creates genuine momentum and is not simply a symbolic gesture.

[John Milne]

What is happening in Gaza is hard enough to watch, but if we are to prevent the west bank from going the same way in a few years’ time, we must act today. Does the Minister agree that recognising the principle of a Palestinian state, without making any judgment for the moment on its borders, is the strongest and most effective way to reaffirm the UK’s long-standing commitment to a two-state solution, while there is still territory left to form it with?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman makes important points about the situation in the west bank—points that we have discussed in this Chamber before. We have condemned the violence and the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank. There are a range of issues on which we profoundly disagree with the Israeli Government in relation to their approach to the west bank, and we will continue to raise those issues with force. I refer him to my previous answer about recognition.

Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

John Milne Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing the debate. We say that at the start of every debate, but this is different—it really matters. She has done a fantastic job since our visit to Ukraine, on which I joined her, not just by bringing the issue to national attention—we now see it in the national news—but by ensuring that it gains international traction.

Until my visit, I knew nothing about this issue, and of all the things I saw this was the most shocking. I learned many things on the trip. The first thing, of course, was the hospitality. Wherever we went, there were fantastic people and such warmth—it was unforgettable. I learned also that life goes on; it is incredible how people can continue. There have now been three years of war, with drones dropping from the sky. We all downloaded an app that warned us about drone attacks and, believe me, it was going off all the time. Yet people went about their everyday lives: they went to work or to restaurants as if it was not happening. It was incredible.

I was impressed by the ingenuity of the Ukrainian people, particularly at a secret drone factory that we visited. Ukraine has become the world leader in drone design and manufacture. It is the future of warfare, so we have a lot to learn from them, and we should be grateful to them for their work. We would not necessarily have expected that level of entrepreneurship in an ex-Soviet bloc state, which shows me that Ukraine belongs in the west and in Europe.

I was struck by the commitment to cause. President Putin and others put about unpleasant stories that this was Zelensky’s war, that the people of Ukraine were not behind him and that he was forcing them into war. That is untrue. In every single community there are flags, memorial centres and graves. It is not hidden. It is in full and present view everywhere, and it is all the more impactful because, in the habit of the Orthodox church, they show pictures of the fallen. We also visited two hospitals where we saw young men in rehabilitation with very difficult injuries.

I also took from the visit something more practical, which relates to international security. We have talked about the need for a European army, because of the pressure we are under, but that is our army: it is larger than all the western European armies put together already. Given the time it will take us to get an army together, we need to support Ukraine’s army, because that is our defence.

There were lighter moments on the trip. I will never forget a night we had in Kyiv. We were in a lovely hotel, but unfortunately we spent half the night in a bomb shelter because of warnings. One of the MPs managed to get his laptop out, and we watched “Darkest Hour”. The parallels between 1940 and where we were in Ukraine were very striking.

At the start of the war, I did not believe that it could get like this. Putin was putting out the story that Ukrainians and Russians were brothers—that they were the same people. I never imagined that things could get as violent, destructive and vicious as they have, but they did straightaway, as we discovered. The Bucha massacre, near Kyiv, was in the first days of the war. It is not as if it grew to that moment; it began with that moment.

The worst crime of all, as we have heard today, is the systematic theft and abduction of all these children, clearly with the knowledge and instruction of President Putin. He brings shame on Russia, which is a great nation. I cannot imagine what it is like to know that your child is alive but with another family. I will say one last thing: besides all the other requests that have been made today, it has to be a precondition that there is no peace without the return of these children.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai immediately. As my hon. Friend would expect, I will not comment overmuch on the actions of other states, but I will say that the Prime Minister has raised this matter directly with the relevant authorities, as have the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and many others.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

7. What diplomatic steps his Department is taking to support Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

Last week I travelled with European partners to Lviv at the invitation of Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, and yesterday I hosted, for the first time in London, Foreign Ministers from the Weimar+ group of key European allies to discuss our joint efforts to strengthen European security and secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

[John Milne]

Last weekend the Prime Minister said that the UK would do all that it could to support Ukraine. If that is the case, why do the Government continue to prevaricate over seizing billions of pounds in frozen assets held in UK banks, which could be used to build Ukraine defences? The longer we delay, the more likely it is that those funds will become wrapped up in other negotiations and we will lose the chance altogether.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue, but it is not an issue on which the Government should act unilaterally. It is a multilateral issue on which we should act with our G7 partners and our European partners, recognising that some partners in Europe are hugely exposed. The best way in which to move forward is to pool those assets, and discussions on that are ongoing.