Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

Lord Rook Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rook (Lab)]

My Lords, about a year ago, I gave one of my first speeches in your Lordships’ House. It was in a debate also led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on this very subject. I said then that, as a rookie Peer, my aspiration was to become more like him as I grow up. I am not sure how much progress I have made in the last year, but the aspiration remains.

When we discuss genocide, crimes against humanity and other atrocities, there is a tendency to call for justice and accountability after the event. Obviously accountability and justice matter, but prevention matters as much, if not more. For this reason, the genocide convention imposes a duty not merely to punish genocide but to prevent it. That duty does not begin after the horror has happened but before an atrocity occurs in the first place.

Commissioned in 2019 by the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Truro review examined the persecution of Christians around the world. However, its insights extend far beyond this one religion, and its recommendations explicitly call on government to protect and promote freedoms across every community. The author of the review, Bishop Philip Mounstephen, then Bishop of Truro and now the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, regrets that he is not in his place today due to long-standing commitments. While I make a poor substitute, in his absence I remind the House of his excellent work.

This ground-breaking publication garnered praise and support from experts and leaders around the world. Following its publication in 2019, the Government accepted all recommendations and created the post of envoy for freedom of religion or belief within the FCDO. A central tenet of the review was the call for future Governments to recognise the warning signs of persecution and identity-based violence before they escalate into mass atrocities. Recommendation 7 calls for mechanisms to facilitate an immediate response to atrocity crimes, including genocide. It specifically highlights the need for early-warning mechanisms, preventive diplomacy and upstream prevention work.

My honourable friend in the other place, David Smith MP, who serves as the UK’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, is doing fine work to advance the Government’s efforts. Only a few weeks ago, he was meeting with politicians, officials and faith leaders in Nigeria, a country which is experiencing an escalation in targeted attacks on different religious groups and a context where too many extremist groups are committing atrocities with impunity.

In another area, grant funding from the FCDO has enabled the BBC “Eye Investigations” unit to report powerfully on atrocity crimes. In response, the BBC faces continual resistance to this reporting. The former China correspondent John Sudworth told the “Today” programme that the corporation has

“faced threats of legal action as well as massive surveillance, obstruction and intimidation”

from Chinese authorities, all for its revelations of crimes against the Muslim Uyghurs. I hope that the Government will continue to support the BBC against such state-led threats and further encourage the BBC to report evidence of ongoing crimes despite threats from powerful regimes.

The question before us today is therefore not whether the Government are advancing the work outlined in the Truro review of 2019. They certainly are. The question is: what more could and should be done to prevent atrocities, crimes against humanity and, specifically, genocide? The evidence presented to Parliament over recent years suggests that serious gaps remain. We have seen repeated examples—from Iraq and Syria to Myanmar, Sudan, Afghanistan and elsewhere—of warning signs being missed or ignored long before atrocities reached their most devastating stage. The challenge does not simply concern a lack of information. Reports are produced. Evidence is gathered. Warnings are issued. The question is whether government has the institutional capacity to identify atrocity risks systematically, assess them consistently and ensure that Ministers receive clear recommendations for effective preventative action. That is precisely what recommendation 7 of the Truro report seeks to address.

There are of course international mechanisms that seek to provide such warnings. The United Nations has established the office of genocide prevention, which monitors risk factors and issues alerts. Independent organisations, such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s early warning project, also assess countries at risk and publish regular forecasts. Yet these bodies do not possess the authority or operational reach to ensure that warnings are translated into timely action by states. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have repeatedly made clear in this debate, both in government and in opposition my noble friend the Minister has called on His Majesty’s Government to exercise leadership on the international stage. He has regularly called out bad actors and has sought to prevent atrocities wherever and whenever possible. I am hugely grateful for his efforts and have three questions for the Government in this debate.

First, following recent departmental restructuring, what has happened to the atrocity prevention functions that were previously located within the Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation, and the mass atrocity prevention hub? What dedicated atrocity prevention capability currently exists within the FCDO? Secondly, and in line with this, do the Government intend to publish a clear assessment of progress against recommendation 7 of the Truro review, setting out what has been implemented, what remains outstanding and how effectiveness is currently being measured? Thirdly, will my noble friend the Minister and the UK Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief host a private round table with Peers who have participated in this debate and those officials who are currently working on these issues to discuss them further?

Prevention is not only a legal obligation; it is also the most humane and ultimately the least costly response to atrocity crimes. When genocide occurs, the international community invariably asks why nobody acted sooner. The Truro review offered a practical answer to that challenge. It called for an early warning system, early engagement and early action. The Government deserve much credit for accepting that recommendation. But acceptance is only the beginning. The true test is implementation. If we are serious about preventing future atrocities, whether against Christians, Muslims, Yazidis, Rohingya, Uyghurs or any other vulnerable community, we must ensure that the commitments already made are translated into enduring institutions, clear processes and effective action.

I hope the Government will use this debate to reaffirm the commitment and to demonstrate how recommendation 7 is being taken forward in practice. Prevention delayed is prevention denied. Put simply, the best time to stop an atrocity is before starts.