Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, my great friend, for securing this debate and congratulate him on introducing his Genocide Determination Bill this morning. I will of course be supporting him.

Only a few years ago, I, too, promoted a genocide prevention and response Bill. It completed all its stages in this House and it was meant to proceed to the other place, but we then had an election. I remind the House that, at the time, when in opposition, my great friend the Minister supported my Bill. He said:

“The solution in the Bill is absolutely vital. It is to put on a statutory footing this special hub within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which will monitor and evaluate processes and keep in touch with developments taking place and research being done”.—[Official Report, 22/3/24; col. 456.]


As I said, my Bill did not go through. That is a warning to all who come up well in the Private Members’ Bills ballot.

I hope that the Government have not lost that support and that it has not dissolved, because a lot has changed in our world over the past two years, unfortunately for the worse. We witness not only the highest number of conflicts and atrocity crimes since World War II but a global unravelling of the international rules-based order—a dismantling that will cost us dearly in the long run.

I start with the United States. I am going to mention the inspiration from Elie Wiesel that shaped some of the approaches that were taken by the US before the current Administration. The late Elie Wiesel, who I had the good fortune of getting to know and to meet several times, was a survivor of the Holocaust and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and he understood better than most the consequences of indifference. His warning was simple but profound:

“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim”.


That principle inspired the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act in the United States. The Act recognised that genocide and mass atrocities do not happen overnight. They are preceded by warning signs that slowly but surely progress into full-blown atrocities.

For many years, the United States played a leading role in building international mechanisms for atrocity prevention. The Elie Wiesel Act was the cornerstone of it. The US invested in expertise, early-warning systems and dedicated structures within government capable of identifying risks before they became catastrophes. I had the good fortune of working with many of the lawyers who were involved in that. These structures inside the State Department were not perfect but were far more advanced than anywhere else in the world. Today, however, many of these structures have, I am afraid, been dismantled.

As conflicts are multiplying and international norms are under strain, institutional capacity for atrocity prevention is being reduced. In the long term, the price we will pay for this is much higher than anything that can be saved in the short term.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is undergoing restructuring again in the name of cutting costs. There are concerns that the atrocity prevention hub—which already exists but is small—and the expertise that it contains may disappear or be absorbed into broader structures. That would be a serious mistake that we would feel for decades to come. For now, we are being told that those reports are incorrect. I hope that is true, but we are not provided with any information in relation to these changes and how they will affect the UK’s work on atrocity prevention and responses. What risk assessment was done before any of the proposed changes? How are the changes going to affect our ability to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes? How are they going to affect victims? Atrocity prevention requires dedicated expertise and it requires people engaged with identifying risks, analysing warning signs and ensuring that His Majesty’s Government act before the early warning signs turn into atrocities.

Without a clear and comprehensive mechanism for atrocity prevention and responses, we will be more prone to the mistake of politicising genocide. Our responses will depend not on the suffering of victims but on the identity of perpetrators, our strategic alliances—where we soft-pedal on whom we may be witnessing committing terrible crimes—or geopolitical interests. The result is a system marked by double standards. When genocide becomes a political label deployed selectively, its power is diminished. Victims notice the inconsistency and, even worse, perpetrators notice it too and feel empowered. This challenge is particularly visible in the example, already given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of China. The evidence relating to the persecution and genocide of the Uyghurs has been extensively documented by human rights organisations, yet too often our willingness to confront these abuses is constrained by economic dependence and trade relationships. I do not resile from my view that trade is important and prosperity matters, but economic interests cannot be an excuse for silence in the face of atrocity crimes.

Another warning sign that is too often ignored is the growing attack on journalists. Across numerous conflicts and atrocity situations, journalists are increasingly targeted, intimidated or killed. We have seen restrictions on reporting and attacks on independent media in places such as Gaza. Journalists from outside were not allowed in and still are not. In India, we get no coverage now of what is happening in Kashmir or Assam. Then there are Ethiopia and Afghanistan—the list goes on. This matters because atrocities thrive in darkness. Over 200 journalists in Gaza have been killed. Protecting journalists is therefore an essential component of atrocity prevention and accountability.

Throughout these crises, one reality remains painfully constant: children continue to be among the primary victims. We have spoken—this is close to my heart—about what happens to women, with the weaponising of sexual violence in conflict, but children too continue to bear the consequences of our collective failures. We see it in Gaza and in Russia in the war on Ukraine, with the abduction of children for forced adoptions. We are seeing serious war crimes across all conflicts, with children being a significant percentage of victims of conflict-related sexual violence and many other atrocities. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned Sudan, and sexual violence towards children has been one of the signatures of that terrible conflict.

I end by emphasising that we know more than ever before about how atrocities develop. We know the warning signs and we know that institutions can help to prevent them. We know the importance of independent journalism, strong diplomacy, international co-operation and political courage. The United Kingdom has the expertise, diplomatic reach and moral authority to lead. Are we prepared to show that leadership?

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, it is really heartwarming to hear such unanimity in support of the Bill, and I, like others, welcome it with all my heart. I too am a Catholic Scot of Irish descent. I am also a close and admiring friend of Lady Angiolini and I am delighted that the King has been so insightful about this appointment, because it has initiated this legislative change but is also symbolic in what it is saying about his own values and about the importance of non-discrimination. That is what the Bill stands for: an end to discrimination.

I want to remind people, because it is within my own memory, that the wonderful Lord James Mackay, who was a really fine Lord Chancellor, was forced to resign from the Free Presbyterian Church, to which he and his family had belonged all their lives, because he attended the Catholic funeral of two judges. That he had set foot in a Catholic church was deemed to be an abomination and he decided that he could not remain within the congregation that was making that determination.

It is not that long ago since the very experience of sectarianism affected lives in the most horrible ways. If people married out—and that was on either side—they would basically be abandoned by their families. It was so frowned upon: people did not attend the weddings or marriage ceremonies of people who were daring to marry someone of a different religion.

As a child in a family of four daughters, I remember the fear that we had. I was not baffled like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie: I was frightened when my mother insisted that we remain indoors on 12 July, when there were going to be “Orange walks”, as they were called. They started at the foot of our road and my mother was frightened that, somehow or other, the violence that often took place might somehow mete out some ghastly experience on one of us. We lived with that, and we lived with the knowledge that members of our family had applied for jobs and, because they had clearly gone to Catholic schools, they had been refused the opportunity.

In fact, when I made my decision that I wanted to be a lawyer—an advocate—I was warned that it would be very unlikely that a Catholic woman would be well received in the faculty of advocates at that time, back in the early 1970s. That was partly behind my choice to come south and study law in England, because I really did not want to face that sort of sectarianism. I am happy to say that it did not live within my own family. Only recently, a number of my nieces have married and chosen—because of the depth of commitment of their partner—to marry inside the Church of Scotland, but with a Catholic priest also giving a blessing. That is an example of people coming together in a very different way from the way that it was when I was a child.

The appointment of Lady Angiolini is a really inspired, symbolic moment. She is an extraordinary and exceptional woman who is incredibly clever. She became the Lord Advocate in Scotland, having been a solicitor. That was not the normal route. She, like me, had not thought it was going to be possible to be an advocate. Yes, one or two Catholic men had become advocates in Scotland, but it was really not a route that seemed open to us. Many routes seemed to be closed; many admissions did not seem to be there for us. So the symbolism of this is very real, and to end sectarianism in Scotland is vitally important.

I welcome, and listened to, my noble friend Lady Alexander with such pleasure. When she described the numbers of hate crimes involving sectarianism, it sounded celebratory, except that it is so accepted in some ways within Scotland that I do not know whether people go to the police to complain about sectarianism.

Finally, one of our Prime Ministers—Tony Blair—became a Catholic once he stepped down from his role. I remember saying to my mother that Tony would go to Mass with his wife and children and describe how he was so active in their local Catholic church. She was shocked and said, “They’ll block him from becoming Prime Minister if people find out”. That was because people believed that we could not be there in those places. So we should be celebrating this piece of legislation.

Media Freedom Coalition

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I cannot confirm that, actually. The important thing is that we value the BBC World Service and have increased funding, with an uplift of £32.6 million in 2025-26, taking the total contribution from the UK Government to £137 million. We want to ensure a longer-term sustainable future for the BBC World Service, which will be done through the charter review. Where those elements of ODA are concerned, that is part of the spending review, but the noble Lord is being a bit premature here.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I chair the high-level legal panel which advises the international coalition of nations referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. I thank the Minister for his attendance at the United Nations General Assembly with us all, promoting the strong sense that democracy depends on there being free media. Unfortunately, disinformation is one of the real challenges. What is being done about the retreat from this arena by USAID? Media freedom is being curtailed in a lot of places in the world where journalists are trained. What is the United Kingdom doing to replace those efforts in its work on soft power?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. Media freedom is absolutely part of this Government’s missions, particularly economic growth, because transparency is needed for that, as well as for climate and security. Media freedom plays an important part.

We are aware that the American Government have made significant changes to the US Agency for Global Media and related agencies such as Voice of America. I come back to how much we value the BBC World Service as it continues to provide impartial and accurate news to global audiences. I stress why it is so vital: it is a trusted voice. It is not the voice of the UK Government. I hesitate to use the term “soft power”. It is an independent voice, trusted globally, and we value that very much. We will monitor developments in relation to the USAGM and review carefully with the BBC any impacts on the World Service.

International Criminal Court: US Sanctions

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to the sanctions imposed by the President of the United States of America on staff working for the International Criminal Court; and whether they will confirm their commitment to the Court and its work in pursuit of justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have repeatedly expressed their support for the independence of the International Criminal Court, including, most recently, last week, by joining a statement together with 70 other states parties. Imposing sanctions against ICC officials impedes the court’s ability to carry out its important work of investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern. We are in contact with the US Administration and British nationals employed by the ICC to understand the possible implications of these measures.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, let me immediately thank my noble friend for his reassurance that the UK is resolute in its support for the ICC. The world will never see peace if there is no entity that will pursue justice for victims of egregious crimes. There cannot be impunity for our allies. Even now, the court is working on files to bring yet more members of Hamas to trial for the atrocities that took place on 7 October. It is assisted in this painful work by Israeli lawyers for the families of the hostages and the families of the Israeli dead.

Work continues also on the investigation of potential war crimes in Gaza. Do the Government accept that this new executive order attacks the fundamentals of the court and its functioning? Will the Government inform the United States Administration in the contacts that they have that Article 70 of the Rome statute forbids the obstruction of justice? There can be no impeding of any officer of the court in carrying out their duties, and arrest warrants can follow. Will the Government advise the President of the risk he faces of an arrest warrant being issued for him?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend is very much aware, successive UK and US Administrations have taken a different view on the ICC. For example, the UK, as she rightly points out, is a signatory to the Rome statute; the US is not. The UK supports fully the independence of the ICC and we do not support sanctioning individual court officials. Our focus remains on ensuring that the ceasefire can be sustained, that a surge of vital aid can reach those most in need in Gaza and that all remaining hostages are released and reunited with their families. That is our goal, we are working with the US at all levels on it, and we will continue to do so.

Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on her Private Member’s Bill, which I heartily support. Over recent years I have had the privilege of working closely with the noble Baroness on issues concerning violence against women and girls both domestically and internationally. I draw attention to my own entry in the register of interests: I am the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. I am also on the task force on war crimes for Ukraine and co-chair the task force set up to recover the children who have been taken into Russia without consent.

IBAHRI has held a number of parliamentary inquiries, provided the secretariat and written the reports concerning a number of the most horrifying situations affecting women. Noble Lords have already heard about them from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and I am not going to rehearse them again, but we need to have as a constant in this House the fact of what is happening in Afghanistan. It was a shameful business that we withdrew from Afghanistan, and many women who had taken up positions that were clearly an affront to the Taliban were placed in dire straits and mortal danger.

Afghanistan now is perhaps the most dangerous place in the world for women. They have been banned from public life and cannot receive an education, work or have recourse to justice. Healthcare is very limited. Recent decrees have banned women from speaking outside the home and singing even inside, if it can be heard outside. There is no singing, and basically no life.

Between 1 January 2022 and 30 January 2024, Afghan Witness, with which IBAHRI works closely, recorded 700 claims, all of gender-based violence suffered by hundreds of women and girls throughout the country. Those are the ones that have been reported. Of course, the shame and stigma associated with sexual violence and abuse are often a restraint on people making any kind of complaint to anybody. These complaints have been reported by social media users, journalists, activists and media outlets in touch with women there. At IBAHRI, we are one of those organisations.

We have held an inquiry here into what should be clearly described as gender apartheid. There is already the crime of gender persecution, and that is certainly going on in Afghanistan, but gender apartheid goes much further. It affects all women; it is institutionalised. That is one of the shameful and shocking things about it.

A similar sort of thing goes on in Iran. We looked closely at the problems facing Iranian women; noble Lords will know about the demonstrations of the many young women who took to the streets after the murder of a young woman. We have been working with the women lawyers who have acted on behalf of people seeking to exercise their rights, and the women lawyers—as well as their clients—end up in jail. We are seeing this happen worldwide.

I want to make a number of basic supportive comments with regard to the Bill. We need to resist and prevent these things happening, because it is now understood that there is invariably sexual violence in war. I can hear the Whip’s coughs, but I want to complete this thought. It is vital that we provide assistance. There is a global piece of work being done by the Global Survivors Fund—for example, in Ukraine—to provide supportive work and therapy for women who have suffered this, because you will never be able to take those cases to courts unless the women are able to have their trauma dealt with. I ask the Government to consider supporting the Global Survivors Fund.

Finally, we have to have women at the peace tables. I strongly urge that we do not have meetings with the Taliban where there is no woman present because the Taliban insist on it. It is unacceptable. It has already happened a number of times when our Government have done that, and it should not be taking place.

Human Rights Violations: Consular Assistance

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was just looking at the eligibility criteria and it is quite clear that we offer this service to British nationals overseas. They establish their rights through establishing evidence of their citizenship. I am not sure what further steps we might need to take. The important thing is that people who are resident abroad can rest assured that our consular services will be available to them.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, in 2019, the Media Freedom Coalition was created by the United Kingdom. It now involves 51 countries. It has a high-level legal panel, which I currently chair, following in the footsteps of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger. The coalition was very clear in its report on consular services that those services should be available to those who are at risk. That is particularly the case for journalists, who are often harassed. The murder of journalists has become a serious epidemic globally because of authoritarianism and wanting to get rid of critics, as has the murder of other human rights activists. Are we taking steps to provide visas for those at risk who need to get out? Sometimes they have family members who need to travel with them. How good are we at providing consular services.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I start by congratulating my noble friend on her appointment as chair of the high-level panel. As she knows, during the United Nations General Assembly, she and I were at the same event, hosted by Canada, on media freedom. That was a coalition between Canada and the UK, undertaken by the previous Government, and we are committed to continuing that work. Our manifesto commitment is quite clear in terms of establishing a right for human rights violations. One of the things we discussed at the Canada meeting was how media freedom was a particular human right. So I will take her points and hopefully we can meet to discuss this further, because there needs to be input into the discussions we are having at departmental level.