Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate and for his continued work on human rights and civil liberties. He and I may not have always agreed on the means, but the one thing that we have been absolutely at one on is the ends: we want to see an end to this sort of behaviour. There will always be differences on the means. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has frequently said to me, his positions in government often changed when he moved into opposition. Sometimes that happens in reverse.
This has been an incredibly comprehensive debate, and it is going to be very difficult for me to cover every one of the issues that have been raised. I know that we will study Hansard carefully and, if I fail to address any particular point, we will write and put a letter in the Library.
How we use the full weight of policy to prevent the gravest crimes known to humanity is among the most serious responsibility of any Government. Across the world, we are witnessing a deeply troubling rise in conflict and instability. From Sudan to Ukraine and from Gaza to Myanmar, the human cost is devastating. In the face of such suffering, it is right that this House considers how government policy can respond more effectively both to prevent these crimes and to ensure accountability when they occur.
The UK Government’s approach rests on the clear principle that preventing and responding to atrocity crimes must be embedded across our foreign, development and security policy. This is not an isolated issue; it is integral to how we promote stability, uphold international law and protect human rights. Our policies are therefore designed to operate across three mutually reinforcing areas: preventing atrocity risks from emerging or escalating; responding decisively where crimes occur or are imminent; and strengthening accountability and justice mechanisms to deter future violations.
Before I address those three areas, I remind the House that on Human Rights Day 2024, the Government identified five key priorities that very much reflect how this debate has gone. The first priority was about defending civic space and fundamental freedoms. By the way—noble Lords have heard me say this—one of the most important ingredients of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society; it enables people to hold their Governments to account. This Government are committed to supporting civil society organisations.
The second priority—again, noble Lords have raised this issue—is the upholding of the rule of law. We are committed to the institutions that promote the international rule of law, including the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. We need to build broad alliances and to listen to the views of others, even when we disagree. It matters that perpetrators of atrocities know that justice awaits them, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows. That is why we strongly support an effective and independent ICC.
The third priority is to champion equal rights for all. Stalling progress on the rights of women and girls, LGBT+ people and those belonging to other marginalised groups is troubling, and it is increasing. We must, more than ever, stand in solidarity with them, and we will advocate for the rights and freedoms of women and girls at every opportunity. This fundamentally includes sexual and reproductive health rights, which are very much under threat at this moment in time.
By championing the freedom of religion or belief for all, we are fighting back against the threats so many people face simply for what they do or do not believe in. The UK special envoy for VAWG, David Smith—my noble friend Lord Rook has mentioned him—launched his strategy last year and gave an excellent timetable for work, which focused on recommendation 7 of the Truro report. We are making progress; we will deliver on that. I am sure that David Smith will be the open to the suggestion of meeting with noble Lords, and I will certainly convey that idea to him.
The fifth and final priority is to respond to the global challenges by prioritising human rights and governance principles, working to end all forms of modern slavery and promoting business and human rights—these things go together and I have strongly argued for them. When I was Minister for Africa, in every African country I went to, I said that if their first priority is economic growth, how do they deliver it? They deliver it with an inclusive workforce that includes delivering on the rights of women. That is what we need to do.
I now turn to those three areas I mentioned, the first of which is prevention. Preventing these crimes depends on early, informed and co-ordinated action. Government policy prioritises building a deep understanding of risk. The UK undertakes rigorous cross-government analysis of conflict and instability, drawing on diplomatic reporting, expert insights and global data. This allows us to identify the drivers of violence, including political exclusion of specific groups of people, weak governance, identity-based tensions or a history of impunity. Our global network of diplomatic missions plays a vital role in this effort, and I have seen this across many continents. Colleagues on the ground, supported by specialist advisers and analysis, provide real-time insights into emerging risks and help to shape targeted responses. This ensures that our policy decisions are based on evidence and focused on where they can have the greatest impact to prevent atrocities.
To protect sensitive intelligence sources and prevent hostile actors from exploiting strategic vulnerabilities, many of our assessments, including the Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy, must remain confidential. Last year, I invited both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend to talk about the review we were doing on the JACS process, which has been a very positive thing.
Prevention also means tackling the root causes of violence, with a focus on areas where analysis identifies those at greatest risk. For example, we support peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts in fragile and conflict-affected regions, helping to address long-standing grievances. We invest in strengthening institutions, promoting the rule of law and countering disinformation and hate speech. We also work to advance gender equality and protect the rights of women and girls, recognising that gender-based violence is not just abhorrent in its own right but also a very big warning sign of broader risks of atrocities. Through our contributions on multilateral mechanisms, including UN peacebuilding efforts, we are building that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, raised PSVI and gender-based and sexual violence in conflict. I pay tribute to her for her excellent work. I have been absolutely committed to the PSVI work we have undertaken. We are making very good progress in terms of renewing our commitments beyond 2026, which we will do. The noble Baroness is right: we need a replacement for the excellent previous special representative on PSVI, and I very much hope that will be announced fairly shortly.
I was in Costa Rica for the inauguration of the new president there, where I met representatives of the UN agencies with whom we were giving financial support to the survivors of sexual violence in three countries in Latin America. I was really impressed with the impact of that. Of course, the key to that has been our absolute focus on a survivor-centred approach, listening to the people who are most affected, responding to them and building that programme.
In relation to Tigray, I had the opportunity to go there and meet the survivors of sexual violence, to understand what they wanted, not only in terms of ensuring accountability but also in how they can rebuild their lives and not suffer the associated stigma. That is why people use sexual violence in conflict—they know it has a stigmatising effect, and that is what we have to properly address.
The second area is how we respond, which is and must be decisive. Where risks escalate and atrocities occur, the Government act swiftly and in co-ordination with partners. The UK uses diplomatic channels to raise concerns directly with states and to press for de-escalation. We work through international institutions, including the UN, to raise the alarm, build consensus and co-ordinate action. Of course, this includes the Human Rights Council, where, for example, on 16 March our human rights ambassador raised the UK’s deep concern, which many noble Lords have raised, around the situation in Xinjiang. We have repeatedly used the Human Rights Council—because we can win votes there, by the way, beyond simply the Security Council; I accept what people are saying in relation to the situation in the Security Council.
Many noble Lords raised Sudan. The UK’s commitment to atrocity prevention in Sudan is unequivocal and long-standing, and we consistently monitor emerging risks, press the parties to the conflict for restraint and urge compliance with international humanitarian law. The Foreign Secretary has made it a priority. We must try to absolutely focus on this issue to ensure that it is not pushed down the global agenda, as we know it has been. The UK, as a leader of the core group on Sudan at the UN Human Rights Council, led efforts to renew the UN fact-finding mission mandate in October—the only UN mechanism investigating violations across Sudan.
This year, we supported the deployment of specialist sexual and gender-based violence investigators, to strengthen accountability specifically on conflict-related sexual violence so that we can hold the perpetrators to account. On 6 May, the atrocity prevention coalition issued a joint statement calling out the risk of escalation in and around Dilling in South Kordofan, pressing the warring parties to guarantee unimpeded access. I know these are words, and the situation in Sudan is dreadful, but we must make sure that it does not go down the global agenda.
On accountability, a central pillar of government policy is supporting international efforts to ensure that those responsible for atrocity crimes are held accountable. This is clear in Ukraine, where we have played a leading role in supporting the Ukraine Government to document crimes and pursue justice, including through co-operation with international partners and others. In Myanmar, the British embassy in Yangon is at the forefront of efforts to address the culture of impunity that is fuelling cycles of violence, as my noble friend Lady Nye mentioned.
Achieving justice can be challenging. Too often, the path is long and difficult—I know that that is the case in relation what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. I reassure him that it is not that we do not think there is accountability, but when crimes are committed, it is vital that we support the opportunity to gather evidence. You cannot pursue a trial without proper evidence, and that is a key element of our work. I am not dismissing in any way the nature of these crimes, but if we are to hold people accountable, that system is really important.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who asked about the case brought by the Gambia in relation to Myanmar. From what I understand, in March 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in the case brought by the Gambia for alleged breaches of the genocide convention. The UK’s intervention presented legal arguments regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the genocide convention. We have trusted that this will help the court when considering these provisions.
The Gambia v Myanmar proceedings have now moved beyond the oral hearings on the merits, which concluded in January of this year, and we are now into the court’s deliberative phase. It remains the United Kingdom’s position that a determination of genocide should be made by the competent court or tribunal, and we welcome the ICJ’s consideration of the issues in relation to Myanmar’s obligations under the convention. However, the status of the arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing is a matter for the court, which is independent, and we will not interfere with its processes.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, it is important to emphasise that no country can address these issues and these challenges alone; it is how we work with others that is vital. That is why our actions are grounded in multilateral co-operation. We work closely with partners and share information. Those returning from conflict in Syria or Iraq must expect to be met at the UK border by counterterrorism policing, interviewed and, where relevant, investigated to determine whether they have committed criminal offences.
I am about to run out of time, but I want to address some fundamental issues. I acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said about organ harvesting. These things are happening without public knowledge, and they are atrocities we need to address. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also raised UN processes, particularly on the UN vote veto. The UK Government were proud to co-sponsor the veto initiative that enables the UN General Assembly to scrutinise the use of the veto. We support the accountability, coherence and transparency code of conduct through which we have committed not to vote in the UN General Assembly against a credible draft resolution to prevent or end a mass atrocity.
I conclude by saying that the role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes is profound and far-reaching. I know what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said about his genocide Bill, and he knows my response: we will not be supporting it. But we share the same ends. People need to be held accountable for atrocity crimes, and we need to ensure that we have the means to do that. I want to put the sort of effort that we have been doing successfully into supporting all those agencies which are gathering the necessary evidence, and where that evidence has been able to be presented to a competent court, we will do our utmost to support it. The Government are determined that we raise these issues, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for having this debate and for putting his Bill forward for consideration. I wanted to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, but he has gone now; he has obviously escaped in time. Anyway, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. It has been incredibly broad ranging, but very important for the future of mankind and womankind.