Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Normally we would congratulate somebody on securing a debate, but on this occasion it is such an absolutely miserable subject that all I can say is that I am as sorry as she is about what is going on. It is ironic that yesterday at 2.30 pm in this Chamber we were debating kinship care and adoption in the UK and British Government support for that. When I first heard about Russia’s “adoption” of Ukrainian children, I wondered whether it was an exaggeration on the part of the people speaking about it, but then we look at the evidence provided and it is absolutely going on.

Independent investigators at the Yale humanitarian research lab identified in March this year 314 individuals from Ukraine who had been placed in Russia’s programme of coerced fostering or adoption. It describes in great detail the circumstances of those 314 children, but the scale is much greater than that. Russia’s children’s commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, has boasted that 700,000 Ukrainian children have been “accepted” into Russia since the war began. Those children are being re-educated in an effort to assimilate them into Russian society. There are at least 57 re-education camps spread across Russian-occupied Ukraine, Belarus and Russia proper.

This is an attempt to eradicate the national identity of Ukrainian children. Videos show children riding around on Belarusian tanks, in body armour and holding rifles. Reports suggest that the children are subjected to psychological coercion, denied their language and indoctrinated with Russian nationalist propaganda. Belarusian President Lukashenko has personally endorsed this so-called “humanitarian project”. Of the nearly 20,000 children recorded as having been taken, little more than 1,000—just 7%—have been recovered. Maria Lvova-Belova is subject to an international arrest warrant, as is President Putin, in relation to this alleged war crime, yet she can be seen on state television describing how proud she is to have adopted a Ukrainian boy from Mariupol.

While the Kremlin has been escalating these abductions, the international response has fallen somewhat short and in some cases has regressed. Just a few weeks ago, the United States Government pulled funding from the conflict observatory based at Yale University. The observatory, which was compiling evidence, had forensically identified satellite imagery and biometric data. It has tracked the identities of 30,000 Ukrainian children taken and their locations. The decision by Trump’s State Department to pull funding has rightly drawn widespread criticism.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I was in Helsinki last week as part of my role in the Council of Europe, attending a conference on the deported Ukrainian children, which was incredibly powerful. One of the most powerful things I heard was a gentleman from Yale University speaking of how the removal of funding would impact their vital work. Frankly, they were already doing it on a shoestring. Does the hon. Member agree that as a country we need to prioritise working with other nations to ensure that that work can continue, because it could end next month?

[Richard Foord]

Absolutely. The hon. Member is right that pulling support from the programme is not an act of impartiality; it is an act of complicity. I am sure the State Department of the United States must have done it very reluctantly, given the professionals who work there on the programme.

To summarise, a short reprieve for the programme is not enough. It must be preserved and fully funded, so that we have the evidence needed in the fullness of time to prosecute these potential war crimes.

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate; I know how important this matter is to her and to all of us. We are all representatives of our democracy, and it is crucial that we as a Government address the concerns about the impact of digital platforms on our democratic process.

Sadly, faith in our democracy is being withered away in today’s age of misinformation and disinformation. Even more concerning is the rise of threats and abuse received online by MPs across this House. The abuse takes unique forms for female MPs and for MPs of colour, who are too often the targets of sexist or racist threats of violence. I am not sure whether a declaration is necessary in this case, but I would like to make it known that I am member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections, and I commend Mr Speaker for his work in this space.

The anonymity granted to users by online platforms makes perpetrators feel especially confident in their abuse. It also makes it harder to track and identify the worst offenders. Additionally, with the rise of artificial intelligence, bots can be directed to abuse MPs and political candidates en masse. These bots are even more difficult to trace. Directing abuse and threats at MPs is not only hateful; it deliberately undermines our political system. Asthe hon. Member for Lagan Valley says, this is about threats against this House. When we must fear for our safety, the most valuable link in our democracy—that between us and our constituents—is strained. An MP should feel safe in their own community, as should anyone else.

Threats and abuse are not the only issue; online platforms are privy to hordes of personal, sensitive information about their users. For many people, social media is their main source of news. Around 72% of my constituents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages use Facebook, but we know that Facebook has a troubling history of endangering democracy. We all remember the outrage when Facebook breached the personal information of millions of users, sharing it with the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. This data was then used to target political advertisements in the US presidential campaign of 2016. The breach was not discovered until two years later. For me, this was the first time that I realised just how seriously the political process could be undermined by digital platforms.

Very recently, Meta stated that it would no longer use independent fact checkers. As a result, misinformation runs even more rampant. I am sure that we have all experienced family members sending us posts that present themselves as facts but are often complete nonsense. Sadly, since I became an MP, these have been really targeted at me, so my family and friends will send me pictures of me at the back of rooms looking shadowy. Members will be pleased to know that apparently I recently banned banter. Allowing misinformation to run rife leads directly to a loss of faith in our democratic institutions, and to a rise in extremism. To reiterate the point I made about me looking shadowy in the corners, it is a problem for all political parties when individuals are personally targeted, particularly women and people of colour, as those groups face specific attacks.

It is obvious that social media has the capacity to influence elections, and that it can be a medium for abuse and threats. I know that many friends from across the Chamber will have experienced this at first hand. It is therefore crucial that action is taken to curb abuse and misinformation.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about the risks associated with social media platforms. Companies too often seem to have all the agency and none of the accountability for what we see on their platforms. We see these platforms pushing more and more extreme content to people through their algorithms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we saw checks and balances applied to the social media giants?

[Leigh Ingham]

My hon. Friend reminds me of something my sister-in-law recently told me. She saw a story on Instagram about a girl’s experience in a relationship. My brother received a completely separate version of the story. It was targeted by gender. There was a disparity in the narratives being pushed. My sister-in-law mentioned how weird it was that they both got the story on the same day, but with different narratives being pushed.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent, emotional speech—its excellence is her trademark—highlighting this problem, and I am sorry to hear about the issues she has faced. Does she agree that when Members of Parliament are targeted in this way, it affects not only them but their families? As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, that puts people off getting involved in politics, which cannot be a good thing for democracy.

[Leigh Ingham]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I completely agree. I am particularly passionate about getting more women into politics. It is something I will constantly bang on about. A number of women have said to me, “I don’t want to put myself in that position.” In fact, when I was considering standing for this place, it was one of the things I was most nervous about. I am not a huge user of social media platforms, and have never really put my life out there in that way, so I was incredibly nervous about standing for a political role, because I did not want to expose myself or my family in that way. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.

In the old days, we had coffee shops and pubs in which to disagree over politics, but the rise of social media has meant that, today, people often get their information online, and have political conversations online. A quiet conversation in a pub or a coffee shop does not reach thousands of people within seconds. Social media has meant that the very nature of political discourse has changed, because the medium has changed.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here in the early part of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so moved by what the hon. Lady says. The truth is that the discourse she describes has been brutalised. Complex ideas have been made simple—or at least apparently simple—and malignance has been given licence, exactly as she said. My advice to any new Member of this House is: do not get involved. I am not involved in social media at all, but I have an immense profile in my constituency, because I occupy the real world, not the virtual world. Real-world contact with people is always more valued and more valuable.

[Leigh Ingham]

I agree with the right hon. Member. I host a lot of community coffee mornings in my constituency, in which we discuss complex ideas, rather than three-word solutions to very complex problems.

Social media is here to stay. The next thing we do must be to regulate it appropriately. It is our duty as Members of this House to ensure that our constituents still have an avenue through which to share their opinions. I agree with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley about disagreeing with people—it is an incredibly important feature of our democracy—but we must enforce guidelines that protect users from harmful content, misinformation and abuse. Ultimately, we must restore faith in our political process. By improving the discourse, we can improve our democracy. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s plans to tackle this issue.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Aldridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will get on to that.

Disinformation has become a stealth weapon wielded by hostile states and domestic actors alike to destabilise communities and societies and to undermine democratic norms. We saw the real-world consequences of that just last summer when inflammatory content spread online with impunity, fuelling riots and civil unrest. That serves as a stark warning that disinformation does not remain online but has dangerous real-life consequences. In my constituency, I saw how people manipulated fear in our most vulnerable communities using online platforms to promote their own craven political agendas. I will never forgive them for that.

[Leigh Ingham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a responsibility on all of us who are fortunate enough to be in this place to use our voices proportionately, carefully and with respect, because by using such platforms we have the power to inflame and antagonise, which can make situations worse?

[Dan Aldridge]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am a very moderate human being. I agree with her. One of the things that I want to do in this place and in my constituency is always look for the positive angle in things, to talk with moderation and to calm community tensions rather than inflame them for political gain. I see much more of the former at the moment, and I am grateful for that.

Stronger regulations, greater transparency and real accountability are essential, but so is meaningful and applicable education and training. One will not be fully effective without the other. Platforms must act in the public interest and have greater ethical oversight and governance rather than simply follow the corporate interests of shareholders. The voices of ordinary citizens, not the interests of the few, must shape our national discourse, and the UK has to push for global consensus where it can in an increasingly challenging and complex world.