Atrocity Crimes Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger

Main Page: Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative - Life peer)

Atrocity Crimes

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts
Tuesday 20th January 2026

(1 day, 8 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on introducing this debate. I am incredibly grateful to him for all he does to ensure that human rights are never forgotten in this House. This is an important topic to address, now more than ever. I declare my interest as co-chair of the Women, Peace and Security APPG and a member of the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, and I set up and chair the Afghan Women’s Support Forum.

The Red Cross reports that the global situation of armed conflict has deteriorated into a world succumbing to war, characterised by more than 130 active conflicts, more than double the number of conflicts 15 years ago. Wars are increasingly protracted, complex and deadly, with 204 million people now living in areas controlled or contested by armed groups. The ICRC warns that the rules of war are being ignored, with civilians bearing the brunt of attacks and women disproportionately affected. It was Major-General Patrick Cammaert who said:

“It is now more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier in modern wars”.


This was brought home to me when I visited Iraq last year. I had the privilege of visiting Lalish, the most sacred temple of the Yazidis. In 2014, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to, ISIL attacked the Yazidi people at Sinjar, destroying their 400,000-strong community, killing many and taking around 6,000 women and girls captive to be used as sex slaves. The UK recognised this as a genocide, and today, nearly 11 years on, a third of the women and girls are still missing.

There are so many other examples, as we have already heard, some of which have already been raised: gender apartheid in Afghanistan, child hostages and the use of rape in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Ethiopia, Haiti, DRC, Nigeria, Myanmar, the Uyghurs in China—all heartbreaking stories.

States have a legal obligation to prevent atrocities, and there are a number of international protection mechanisms in place. However, despite their powerful wording, these mechanisms are globally weak, and often there is a lack of political will with hard-worked-for commitments not integrated into policy or programmes. There is a glaring gap globally between the obligations under the Geneva conventions and action.

I understand that the UK maintains it has tools available to prevent atrocity crimes abroad, including early warning mechanisms, the use of diplomacy to de-escalate and development to address root causes. However, the Trump Administration have slashed overseas development aid. Why have the UK and others followed suit at this critical time, often removing life-saving help from the poorest countries? Most importantly, we should be investing more into conflict prevention so that atrocities are never committed. This would save not only lives but billions of pounds by averting the massive costs of war and fostering stable societies with economic growth and improved livelihoods. Studies show that every £1 invested could save as much as £100.

However, the report by Mercy Corps and Saferworld last year revealed a sharp decline in in the UK’s investment in peacebuilding, violence prevention and conflict resolution in recent years—an area in which it was once a leader. In conflict resolution, it is proven that including women in peace processes is crucial for durable peace, yet women remain significantly under- represented as negotiators, mediators and signatories despite efforts to increase their roles in peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding. The UK has just withdrawn funding for the Women Mediators across the Commonwealth network.

Too often, these crimes are committed with impunity for the perpetrators. In talking to survivors of atrocities, most will say that they want justice, yet the mechanisms for this are ineffectual, and, often, the nations where the crime is committed have no institutions or appetite to address this. How can the ICJ, the ICC and universal jurisdiction become more effective? We must not fall into the trap of mistaking process for progress, status for impact or rhetoric for action. Clearly, we need to try to ensure peace at all costs, yet the UK appears to be cutting its contribution to conflict prevention and resolution and international development at this critical time. Most importantly, we need to stand up to those who wish to ignore and undermine existing international mechanisms and instead help to strengthen them and make them more effective. I leave you with the words of Ernest Hemingway, who said:

“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime”.