Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I express my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing today’s debate and for his tireless and principled leadership on atrocity prevention. His work, including the Genocide Determination Bill and the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, both of which I have previously supported, has been indispensable in ensuring that this House continues to confront these issues with the seriousness that they deserve.

I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register and support provided by the Coalition for Global Prosperity, in the form of a parliamentary researcher for one day a week. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords speaking in this debate, I am a member of the advisory board for the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes, which is chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The standing group is conducting an independent review into the UK’s approach to atrocity prevention and response, and I hope the Minister will commit to considering the findings of the group carefully.

The—as ever—excellent House of Lords Library briefing on protecting populations from atrocity crimes provides a sobering reminder of the scale of the challenge. It also sets out the evolution of UK policy across successive Governments, and it is right that we acknowledge this record. Between 2010 and 2024, the previous Conservative Government introduced several significant initiatives. These included the creation of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which incorporated atrocity prevention objectives; leadership on the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and the declaration of humanity; the adoption of recommendation 7 of the Bishop of Truro review and the establishment of the mass atrocity prevention hub within the FCDO, designed to improve early warning and cross government co-ordination; and continued support for international accountability mechanisms, including the work establishing UNITAD to promote accountability for crimes committed by Daesh and ISIL, and support for the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine. These were meaningful steps that strengthened the UK’s institutional capacity to identify and respond to atrocity risks. Since 2024, the Labour Government have expressed a commitment to reinvigorating atrocity prevention policy, including a renewed emphasis on multilateral engagement. These steps are welcome, but they must be matched with clarity, resourcing and urgency.

Despite all these efforts, we continue to see what can only be described as a circular failure of responsibility. National Governments point to international institutions, insisting that bodies such as the UN or the ICC must act. Meanwhile, those institutions rely on national Governments to raise alarms, provide evidence and push forward prosecutions. The result is inertia, and in that inertia atrocities take root. If we are serious about prevention, we must break that cycle.

Another structural weakness is our tendency to view atrocity prevention solely through the prism of armed conflict. Yet some of the gravest crimes of our time have occurred outside traditional conflict scenarios: the persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the systematic violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar, and the atrocities against Muslims and Christians in India—these are all reminders that atrocity crimes can be perpetrated by states against their own populations, often behind a facade of stability. Our frameworks really must evolve to reflect this reality.

Nowhere is the urgency of reform clearer than in Sudan. The conflict that erupted in April 2023 has produced one of the world’s worst humanitarian and human rights catastrophes. We have seen widespread and systematic attacks on civilians, including ethnically targeted killings; mass displacement on a scale now exceeding that of Syria or Ukraine; sexual violence used as a weapon of war, including against children; and the near total collapse of legal protections, with no functioning justice system capable of investigating or prosecuting atrocity crimes. There is a growing risk of further genocidal violence, particularly in Darfur, where communities already scarred by past atrocities are once again being targeted. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has mentioned, this is after a UN mechanism already identified hallmarks of genocide in the brutal takeover of El Fasher.

International mechanisms have failed to respond with the urgency required, and the international system remains paralysed. Sudan is not simply a humanitarian crisis; it is an atrocity crime crisis and an impunity crisis. It is precisely the kind of crisis our policies are meant to anticipate and prevent. We often hear and say, “never again”, but this is becoming an eerie refrain, and the evidence suggests otherwise. The International Development Committee has shown that, between 2000 and 2020, at least 37 countries experienced mass atrocities or were at serious risk of them.

Today is the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression. Nowhere is the need for a renewed commitment clearer than in the protection of children affected by armed conflict. The UK has long been a global leader on the children and armed conflict mandate, yet we still lack a dedicated strategy. Such a strategy is needed, especially in the context of significant aid reductions, which risk weakening the very systems designed to protect the most vulnerable. I am grateful to the Minister, Chris Elmore, for his recent reply to the letter from Save the Children that I cosigned, and his indication that the Government are considering a new dedicated toolkit for officials is welcome. But, with the ongoing restructuring of the FCDO, we need clarity on whether the CAAC team will be protected from the ODA cuts, and with it the department’s expertise on CAAC, PSVI and atrocity prevention more broadly. My current understanding is that the restructure has been pushed back and will likely conclude by late summer. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that in his response.

Ending impunity remains the single most effective deterrent to atrocity crimes. This requires action on two fronts. We must lead by example. That means passing the Genocide Determination Bill—I look forward to supporting the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in that in the coming weeks and months. It means safeguarding funding for children and armed conflict teams and specialist expertise. It means closing loopholes in our universal jurisdiction framework, as proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and cross-party amendments tabled in the previous Session. It also means continuing to support mechanisms such as the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine.

The Prime Minister has stated that the UK will not be a safe haven for criminals, but, as we know, non-British perpetrators who have committed genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity can visit our shores without fear of prosecution. Can the Minister say whether the UK Government are considering amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to stop these cycles of impunity?

Secondly, we must push for stronger international co-ordination mechanisms. I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to ensure that, once the treaty on crimes against humanity is adopted, we can implement the duties enshrined in the treaty. How are the Government supporting the process at the UN to make sure that it is not watered down and will provide an effective mechanism?

With the UK taking on the G20 presidency next year, and the G7 presidency the year after, we have a unique opportunity to elevate atrocity prevention on to the global agenda. Of course, we cannot ignore the cuts to the UK’s official development assistance—the largest proportional cuts in the G7—which will bring ODA to its lowest share of gross national income since 1999. That will obviously have a significant impact on the UK’s ability to do the important work needed on combating atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

I believe the time has come for a national strategy on atrocity prevention: one that includes statutory powers for referral of suspected genocides and a clear focus on protecting children and young girls in conflict. It should also include a mechanism on conflict-related sexual violence, as previously proposed by my noble friend Lady Helic. If we are to honour our commitments—our moral, legal and historical commitments—we must move from rhetoric to architecture and from aspiration to action. The tools exist. The evidence is overwhelming and we have a responsibility to take action.