Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Convention on Genocide

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on Genocide.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you as Chair of the proceedings, Ms McDonagh. It is a long time since I have engaged in this art form.

I will begin by expressing my regret that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) cannot be with us today; unfortunately, he is not well. He was the co-sponsor, along with me, of at least part of this debate, and I count him as a good ally on matters concerning human rights. The hon. Member for Henley leads the UK delegation to the Assembly of the Council of Europe, which gives him prominence in the human rights debate.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I join the hon. Member for Rochdale in expressing our dismay at my hon. Friend the Member for Henley not being here to speak on a subject on which, as the hon. Gentleman generously said, he is extremely expert. I am sure that the whole House would want to wish him a speedy recovery.

[Tony Lloyd]

I will pass the Minister’s words on to the hon. Member; I think we would all agree on that.

On a happier note, we meet today to celebrate the fact that it is now some 75 years since two important universal documents appeared. The universal declaration of human rights was brought into being on 10 December 1948, and, of course, there was the equivalent declaration on genocide. I shall not trespass on to the genocide declaration, because my identical twin, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will speak on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Not completely identical.

[Tony Lloyd]

Some identical twins differ more than others; that is all I will say. Nevertheless, he will speak on that declaration with great knowledge.

The only thing that I will say about the genocide declaration is that it is sometimes very narrowly interpreted as being concerned solely with the partial extermination—the killing—of populations when, in fact, it is much broader than that. It is very important both in the way that the public perceive it and in creating a legal base for many other activities. I will begin by saying what a tremendous thing it was that the United Nations was able to bring that together. It was very much influenced by Eleanor Roosevelt, the spouse of President Roosevelt. It was particularly important because the world had just lived through the most astonishing atrocities: the dehumanisation of the individual, with six million Jews killed in the death camps along with untold numbers of gypsies, gay people and Slavs. Even though those were Hitler’s evil crimes, it is, perhaps, worth quoting Stalin, who said that one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. That chilling comment almost summarises what took place during the second world war and how those in the generation that brought into being the universal declaration were able instead to say, “No, we are not prepared to accept that; each human being is valid in their own right”.

The preamble to the universal declaration of human rights says:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.

That is the rights of “all members”, without consideration of gender or any other of what we would now regard as protected characteristics. In that context, this was a major change in attitude to the concentration on the individual.

As a slightly barbed comment, I will just say that we even heard in the main Chamber recently a Minister talking about the situation in Gaza and Palestine and saying that the killing of Palestinians was a “by-product”. That may have been an infelicitous use of words, but it is the kind of verbal usage that we must be very careful to guard against, because the life of every individual must be treated as being valid, which is exactly what the universal declaration of human rights reminds us of.

Of course, in this era we can ask, “Has the universal declaration been a success or a failure?” Its level of aspiration is extraordinary: prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex or religion; the right to life and liberty; the prohibition of slavery; prohibition of torture; prohibition of arbitrary arrest, detention and exile; the right to a fair trial; freedom of religion; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly and association; the right to work, which interestingly includes the right to equal pay for equal work and the right to form or join a trade union; and the right to education.

Referring back to equal pay for equal work, it took another two and a half decades before our country even legislated on that issue, when Barbara Castle brought in the equal pay legislation. However, the universal declaration of human rights was developed back in the 1940s, so this profound declaration established the principle of equal pay for equal work.

If we look across the nations of the world, it is not that difficult to be dismayed in this era by the breaching of the commitments that many countries have made to the universal declaration of human rights. I will run through some of those countries; I know that other hon. Members will have other countries that they prefer to talk about.

Let us take the situation in Syria. A terrible war has taken place there, and now 2.4 million children have no access to education and 55% of Syrians are food-insecure. Both of those things are in contravention of articles of the declaration.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, we know about the unlawful killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Ankara. That still screams out as an abuse by the Saudi authorities. And of course Raif Badawi is a Saudi blogger and activist who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for creating an online forum for public debate, and he now faces a 10-year travel ban after his release.

In Iran, the debate about the right of a woman to choose whether or not to wear the hijab, or the scarf was put to the test by the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. She died in police custody after being severely beaten and tortured. That led to literally millions of people protesting to challenge the Iranian regime’s actions. The result was that 19,000 people were arrested and 551 people were killed.

Oddly, of course, while the Iranians want to dictate that women should wear the veil or scarf in certain circumstances, in France the hijab is banned under certain circumstances, in contravention of these rights that I am discussing.

Russia is now a major abuser of rights. In the Bucha massacre—let us say genocide—in Ukraine, 450 people were murdered, and mass rape and torture took place. In addition, 16,000 Ukrainian children have been kidnapped; only 300 of them have been returned from Russia or, possibly, Belarus. There is also the case of Arshak Makichyan, a climate activist who is charged with terrorism; he has also been stripped of his Russian citizenship and left stateless.

In Serbia, we know that the attacks in northern Kosovo, including the so-called Banjska attack in October this year, were planned by armed Serbian militants, but they were almost certainly organised by Milan Radoičić, who has strong links to the Serbian president. In Serbia, of course, they continue to deny the genocide that took place in a previous era.

On a different continent, in the Philippines unlawful killings have been carried out under the war on drugs, which was launched by former President Duterte. It is believed that maybe over 6,000 people were killed during that period. I met a Filipino priest this week who cannot return to the Philippines because he would be charged by an army officer who wanted to indict him for the criticisms he made of that army officer.

I could go on, with many more cases in Colombia. We know that 182 killings of human rights and environmental defenders took place there in the previous calendar year. There is legislation to protect those defenders, but it is not implemented. Impunity is a major problem.

I will not go through every country in the world, but I want to touch on one or two others. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, war has been endemic for many years: mineral wealth is stolen by the DRC’s neighbours, but routine torture of its citizens also takes place. I met an asylum seeker this week who was granted asylum and now lives in this country as a refugee. In Zimbabwe, arbitrary arrest takes place. In Mali, the Malian and allied security forces have been implicated in hundreds of unlawful killings. There is also no doubt that in India, systematic discrimination against and stigmatisation of religious and other minorities, particularly Muslims, is endemic. In January, photographs of 100 Muslim women, including journalists and activists, were displayed on an app that said they were for sale, in order to humiliate and intimidate them; in October, police in Gujarat publicly flogged Muslim men accused of disrupting a Hindu festival; and in Indian-occupied Kashmir, the actions of the Indian authorities are outrageous. Those very often slip through the net of things to which we are able to pay attention.

I cannot fail to mention the situation at the moment in the middle east with Israel and Gaza. The attacks on Jewish women and the level of brutality meted out by Hamas scream out against everything we believe in. We need to condemn Hamas and the activists who perpetrated those attacks. Equally, however, I have to condemn the actions of the Israeli forces when we see the denial of food and water and of power to hospitals, which, again, are in breach of Israel’s convention obligations. Across the world, there is a pattern of abuse that is both tragic and, perhaps more legalistically, in gross contempt of those countries’ obligations.

The challenges come closer to those who were the driving forces for the universal declaration. The United States is not free of criticism. We have seen people arrested without charge and without process in Guantanamo Bay, for example. Again, the world ought to pay attention to that. In the United States, the right to health is rationed by the power of the dollar, so the poor do not have access to their declaration rights to health. The death penalty—both the so-called legal death penalty and the death penalty sometimes at the hands of the police and other forces—is also something that shames America.

In case people think I am ignoring our own country, we have not ratified the protection for migrant women under the Istanbul convention, for example. We really need to begin to move on that. We have made laws that allow us to strip individuals of their citizenship, leaving them stateless. That cannot be right and is contrary to convention rights. The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 will almost certainly come before the European Court of Human Rights—it needs to do so—because it offers de facto an amnesty from prosecution for the most serious crimes of murder and unlawful killing. Last night, we heard the Home Secretary’s view that he could declare by statute Rwanda to be a safe country. I remind Members that the United States State Department described Rwanda as a country whose human rights breaches include unlawful killing and the use of cruel and discriminatory policies, including torture. By any standards that does not make Rwanda, even by statute, a safe country.

[Mr Mitchell]

One must be careful when talking about Rwanda, a country I know extremely well. This is a country that, in the last 30 years, suffered a genocide where 1 million people were killed in 90 days. It is an extraordinary success story of a country that has lifted itself up from the very depths to be one of the safest and most stable countries in Africa today. Do not forget either that, dealing with the aftermath of a genocide, the Gacaca court system was incredibly successful at processing people who had committed murder in their hundreds of thousands and reintegrating them back into society. That is an extraordinary and pretty much unprecedented achievement.

[Tony Lloyd]

I have also visited Rwanda and met the same President the Minister will have spoken to. I recognise where Rwanda has come from, but I also recognise that in any journey we expect progress. The US Department of State’s critique is real and we ought to take it into consideration, in particular when we seek, by statute, to declare Rwanda to be a “safe” country. We can argue about the history, but we need to look at the present as well. There are still some unsavoury things—unsavoury is a kind word—that take place in Rwanda and we should recognise that.

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not want to prolong the debate at this point on Rwanda, but in the opinion of the British Government, and more widely, it is indeed a safe country. The hon. Gentleman may or may not know this, but if we look at the statistics Kigali is a safer city than London.

[Tony Lloyd]

Well, I am a Mancunian and we have different views on these things. I shall be leaving London sometime this evening, and not to go to Kigali.

What we must acknowledge is that a debate is taking place in the Minister’s party about the relevance of international law. I hope it will conclude that, as a nation, we are better protected when we are a part of collective security and collective law. To describe the European Court of Human Rights as a foreign court is unhelpful. It is not a foreign court; it is a court that we helped to establish. I hope the fact that there is a debate will ensure that we recommit to the values of the universal declaration of human rights.

On the positive side—I have gone through some of the negatives—the universal declaration has been the foundation of international human rights law. Nine binding treaties stem from it and the majority of United Nations members have signed up to four or more of them, so international human rights law exists and is now actionable, sometimes through national legislation, as we have in our own country, and sometimes through other bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights. The international covenant on civil and political rights guarantees the right to life and equality before the law. The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights provides for the right to freedom of expression and the right to work, to social security and to education—all very important freedoms and rights. We also have the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and those who have been involved know how important that is.

Around the world, we have seen the expansion of concern—particularly in this country, but in others as well it has to be said—of non-governmental organisations. I will not name them all, but we had a number of them in Parliament this week, ranging from Amnesty International to country-specific NGOs. We recognise the growth of human rights and environmental defenders around the world, and—I mentioned the hon. Member for Henley—the important role of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe system itself in underpinning human rights in this country.

There is no doubt that the universal declaration has been a success. Here in our own Parliament, many structures and bodies are devoted to human rights, but there are challenges, which I put to the Minister in the hope that he will respond, including that defenders of human rights and the environment are under enormous pressure all around the world. They are killed, or they are charged with artificial crimes. We know about that pressure. We, as a country, should defend the defenders of human rights and the environment.

I was a Minister in the Foreign Office in my time, so I know how difficult it is to engage in human rights conversations. I had the delight of talking to President Milošević in his day, when he was about to murder Kosovans—I do not remember him being very responsive to my entreaties on human rights, so I recognise how difficult it can be. Nevertheless, there is a moral and practical obligation on our Government to ensure that the case for human rights is embedded in everything that our Foreign Office does, including striking trade deals. It must show concern about environmental protections and workers’ rights. We must recognise when striking security deals, including those involving the transfer of arms or technologies such as surveillance equipment, that such hardware can be used for the wrong purposes.

We know with near certainty that Yemenis have been carpet-bombed using weapons made in this country. We must take that on board.

I also ask the Minister to follow the model of the Bribery Act 2010 and seriously consider the establishment of mandatory supply chain due diligence to protect the human rights of those working in supply chains, as well as protect the environment that supply chains can put under pressure.

Finally, I think the Minister will definitely be on board with my final suggestion, because it is implicit in his own White Paper. We need to get upstream on these things to ensure that we are building capacity around human rights defenders and environmental defenders, on issues such as impunity and on issues such as environmental protections more generally. In the end, we must build capacity to ensure that crisis does not automatically lead to violence. Those would be enormous gains. I pay tribute to the Minister for being on the more endearing end of the Government—I apologise to the Minister; he will never live that down. I nevertheless look forward to a positive response to our demands, which ought to strike favour as we celebrate the establishment of the universal declaration of human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh, and to speak in this debate on the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights and the UN genocide convention. I am pleased that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is here to respond this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. I also thank Dr Kate Ferguson and the whole team at Protection Approaches as well as the teams at the Aegis Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, Remembering Srebrenica and the young people from Hampton School, who have campaign called “Genocide 80/20”, and who are campaigning tirelessly on preventing genocides and mass atrocities.

In the 1990s, long before being elected to this place, I worked in Bosnia during and after the war; more recently, I visited the site of the Srebrenica memorial to the genocide. I have also visited Yad Vashem in Israel and the Holodomor memorial in Kyiv, which I went to last year with other MPs.

Given that background and those visits, I am honoured to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. I became chair four years ago, when I was elected— I cannot believe it has been four years—because I am so passionate about not seeing an endless train of atrocities. Some of the most important decisions that we will make as parliamentarians will be about atrocities, but when we see them it is too late for many people.

I will focus on early warning and prevention, and especially the call for a national strategy on mass atrocity crimes. This is not an abstract policy area; we have seen it with our own eyes. I have seen the real and devastating impact that hate has when it is left unchecked. The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide was the first human rights treaty— adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, 75 years ago this Saturday. It signified the international community’s commitment to make sure that the incomprehensible horrors of the past could never be repeated. That commitment to “never again” has resounded down through those 75 years, and it must really mean something.

The convention means that the international community has committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure that the early-warning systems are in place and that there are no excuses for inaction. It sets out a definition of genocide as the

“intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

It is that special “intent” that makes it a uniquely difficult crime to determine.

While the convention was a signal of the intention of 152 states to finally end genocide once and for all, its implementation in the real world falls short of its bold ambitions, as we have seen over these 75 years. Responses are too frequently focused on acknowledging that a genocide has already occurred, and sometimes punishing those responsible. That is absolutely important—it is important that justice is seen—but it falls short of fulfilling the original intention of the genocide convention: there is not enough focus on identifying potential genocides and preventing them before they metastasise into a cancer of hate and suffering.

The APPG on the prevention of genocide, which I chair, has set out the case for the need for a consistent response to mass-atrocity crimes—a need for a national strategy. There is not enough strategic oversight from the Government to pick out those early indications or risks, or to respond to urgent warnings. Modern atrocity crimes all share very similar features and should be met with policies that address them.

I have heard people in my constituency say, “I can’t watch the news at the moment—it’s too much.” It feels so overwhelming when we hear about all the situations happening. However, saying that there is something is similar about them—that they can be addressed early on, that they can be spotted and that action can be taken—gives power back to Governments, back to us, and to our embassies and high commissions around the world, so that we can take action.

Those broad causes can be broken down into separate elements. First, modern atrocities are often motivated or legitimised through politics of identity-based grievance, discrimination and often a lack of human rights. Secondly, they can be through an organised conspiracy by state or non-state actors. Thirdly, modern atrocities frequently arise from a group taking advantage of unchecked power. If that power remains unchecked, escalation can then take place faster than the international community can respond, leading to widespread violence and systematic human rights violations.

Those may sound like extreme and rare occurrences, but that is not the case. Across the world, mass atrocities occur much more frequently than we would like to think, and many have been raised by other members in this debate. Just look at Ukraine or the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, which the hon. Member for Strangford has already referred to and which we saw when we visited Pakistan earlier this year. There is a report with many recommendations for both our Government and the Government of Pakistan, which I hope the Minister will look at and consider as well.

Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Tigray, Myanmar, Xinjiang, the Hazaras, the Yazidis, and what is happening in Israel and Palestine are all examples of ongoing atrocities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, we condemn the actions of Hamas against the Jews, who are living peacefully—the rape of women, the killing and hostage-taking. We also condemn the disproportionate use of force by Israel—the use of access to water, food, medicines and fuel as a weapon of war, and the forced displacement of 1.7 million people and rising. The incidence of mass atrocities is rising across the world because inequality, social fracture, democratic backsliding, resource scarcity, arms proliferation, climate change and the internationalisation of malign, non-state actors are all moving us in the wrong direction.

Although that news is deeply concerning, we know that mass atrocities are predictable and often preventable. Early intervention is the key. Not only is that more likely to succeed in saving lives, but it will have a lower financial, military and diplomatic cost as well; it is good value for money to save lives by early intervention when it is seen that atrocities are on their way to being committed. As I have said, to intervene early enough we need a coherent strategy backed up with strong political will that is consistently monitoring and responding to the causes that I have outlined. Early intervention is not good only in itself; it is fundamental to our security in the UK. Preventing mass atrocity crimes is not a nice-to-have or a concern simply for those of us committed to human rights; it is fundamental to our national security.

Let me first commend the progress made in recent years. Since I became chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, we have been monitoring the situation closely, and we have seen progress. There is commitment to prioritising mass atrocity prevention in the integrated review and in the new 2030 foreign policy framework.

There was the creation of the new mass atrocity prevention hub, which sits in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Although it is welcome, that hub must have teeth and the scope to work across Government Departments, with clear lines of accountable political leadership with the means to prevent, mitigate, respond and punish. At the moment, we do not have an approach for how to foresee and respond to the pathologised violence of mass atrocity crimes, which is different from violent conflict. The hub must be preventive in nature, in line with the UK’s commitment.

It is also encouraging to see the integration of atrocity prevention in several countries’ strategies—meaning that embassies and high commissions are taking this up and taking action—and to see the UK championing a crimes against humanity treaty at the United Nations. In the international development White Paper published recently, there is a section that says that new technologies should be used to expedite the forecasting of conflict and mass atrocity risks, extending the length of time from a few months to a few years in advance, in order to buy time for response. Access to data and technology should be extended so that early warning is used more systematically across the international system. It is a good start and it is good in its own right, but it just does not go far enough; a national strategy would take that much further.

[Tony Lloyd]

Just a brief point, if I may. I fundamentally agree that the national strategy would move the situation forward, but we also need to internationalise this process. We need to at least bring together like-minded nations who would be prepared to buy in to exactly the same framework.

[Fleur Anderson]

I wholeheartedly agree. The UK championing a crimes against humanity treaty would be one stage of that, but it needs to go further, with internationalising through many other treaties that we are involved in and in many other streams of work.

If we had an international strategy and embassies took it up consistently, we would be more enabled on the ground through different embassies working together, as they do in many countries. A national strategy must have four components; this has also been raised in the International Development Committee’s report, “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world”, which concluded that there was an urgent need for the UK to adopt a national strategy for preventing and responding to atrocity crimes.

The four core components are, first, that prevention-first policy thinking should be at the centre of any strategy. That prevention-first approach must address the causes of atrocities by disrupting and dismantling the organised architecture of atrocities. Secondly, the strategy must invest in network analysis that monitors and evaluates the drivers that cause atrocities; maps potential motivations and the interrelations between perpetrators and the coalitions that can help prevent escalation; and identifies the points where leverage can be effectively applied, and which actors can do that. The paragraph in the international White Paper incorporates that.

The third part must be a more holistic approach to developing a resilient society—this is the part that I keep going on about in many meetings. It is about civil society strength, where cohesive, equitable communities, high in public trust and with strong, inclusive institutions, can limit and mitigate the damage from both internal and external shocks. When the potential for mass atrocities is building, women’s groups, young people, access to better employment and jobs or support for human rights defenders and environmental protectors can be the crucial things on the ground that stop and prevent movement towards atrocities. As well as the diplomatic and military, civil society is absolutely crucial. It is like the three legs needed for the stool that will enable us to prevent atrocities.

Lastly, we need an institutionalisation that finds the right balance between integration and specialisation—this is how the mechanics of Whitehall works—to ensure that atrocity prevention is neither mainstreamed nor siloed to death. It leads to more effective action by co-ordinating, convening and unlocking responses. If we brought in this national strategy, the Minister would be free to do what is absolutely right, without being hamstrung by a lack of real political infrastructure.

The absence of a policy on atrocity prevention has left the UK ill-prepared to respond to some of the greatest foreign policy crises of our time: Sudan, Ukraine, Tigray and more that have already been mentioned. When the Government refused, over years, to acknowledge the atrocity risks rising in Sudan, the Minister here went further than most this summer to call out the atrocities in Darfur. Without policy on these crimes, however, even with his contributions the UK is unable to go further and take meaningful actions necessary to help protect people in Sudan. That is just one example. The Minister knows that the violence we are talking about, whether in Darfur or Syria, is markedly different from armed conflict and should not be responded to in the same fashion.

To conclude, we need a national strategy on mass atrocities, so that we lead international efforts to stamp out signs of atrocity wherever it raises its ugly head. We need a strategy that has political weight; that is consistent and not up to the interests of different Ministers, ambassadors or high commissioners; that is built in with early warning and identification; and that is resourced both in Whitehall and in countries. We need to ensure it supports a civil society for peace, so that when we say, “Never again,” we really mean never again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

I begin by thanking the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) for their comments about the reception two days ago, which was actually hosted by IPU, the chair of which is with us today—the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—and myself as chair of the APPG on human rights.

I want to make a quick reflection. I am perhaps a little older than some people in this debate, and I grew up in a world where Africa and other parts of the world were subject to colonialism; when we saw South Africa descend into apartheid; when we saw brutal proxy wars in Mozambique and Angola; and when we saw the violent decolonisation process in Kenya, at least in part because of the acts of our own society, and even more so in French Algeria. I have lived through the Vietnam war, the bombing of Cambodia and the atrocities that later took place there.

I could go on and on: military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile and many other parts of the world; here in Europe, Greece was under the heel of the colonels; Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships; and central Europe—or the east of Europe, as we used to call it—was under the yoke of domination by the then Soviet Union, or even military rule in the case of Poland.

I do not say that to say that it has always been bad. I say it because change can happen, and change happened in all those places because of political will. It is the political will inspired by the universal declaration of human rights and by the genocide convention that can make a material difference in this world. We have heard some very good speeches today, and I congratulate everyone who has taken part. It is important that in this House of Commons, this Parliament of ours, we uphold the values of human rights. I have to say that we heard some very good things from the Minister that we, as a nation, can be proud of in terms of our own contribution. In the end, it is that exchange of not simply resources, although that does matter, but values that can make a huge difference in this world. That can enshrine the values of these two things that we celebrate today and make the change around the world that is there.

Obviously, in the end, there are very great specifics in this, but there does need to be political will. That political will needs to be internationalised; it is not enough for us to be a model country. We have to be part of an international consensus for change. We need to build the institutions: the human rights defenders, the environmental protectors, and the NGOs around the world. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) who mentioned the role of the International Criminal Court. It is also, of course, about looking to strengthen those institutions that can make a material difference—not simply the ICC, but others too. That is a role we have to play our part in, but internationalise as well.

I think the message that has come across today is that we must fight for the change that we want to see take place. We have heard some good things, and we have actually heard a commitment to real action. We need to see more action from our Government—in fact, all our Governments—on a global basis. This debate has been significant because it does say, once again, that those who had the political will 75 years ago lit a light, and we must bear that light into the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on Genocide.