Lords Chamber

Thursday 4th June 2026

(began 6 days, 5 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:05
11:06
None Portrait Oral questions: Government policy on temporary skilled worker visas for creative occupations Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Come.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First Oral Question First Oral Question Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury.
11:06
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
None Portrait Oral questions: Cultural exchange arrangements between the creative sectors of the EU and the UK Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Labour)
-

>> Third Oral Question Baroness Caine of Kentish Town. >> My Lords, I beg leave to ask. >> The question.
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
None Portrait Debate: Adequacy of the law on the regulation of fertility treatment
-

not even taught what was then called the Facts of Life. It turned out that this did not matter, as out that this did not matter, as the task of the HFEA chairwoman was to explain to the public in language that everyone could understand what was happening and the ethical problems. And that's the approach I'm taking today. The UK was a first in pioneering and regulating in vitro fertilisation, as in other fields, being first is something to be proud of, but risks falling behind what is required as the years go on, as in our railway system, and may not be sufficiently visionary to encompass future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

developments. But this is not to Little. The global. Achievement of Baroness Warnock and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Her committee. When they produced. The report that. Laid the ground. For the HFEA and for followers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the HFEA and for followers in regulation the world over. So now I hope once more that. We can be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We can be. Leaders in bringing that law up to date. Future proofing it and coming into with societal changes. I am well aware of the complexities and time commitment involved in reforming the law, and the risk that legislators will pile in with restrictions and other issues that are not in accord with the root needs. But we have done it before with acts reforming the original HFEA 1990 act, and we can do it again with a progressive government.

Many of the patients are desperate. The clinicians are competitive. This is where the dangers of statistics become apparent. More important than generalities, the basic element in statistics has to be the age of the woman being treated and the age at which her eggs were frozen. Clinics offer extras in treatment for which the patient pays more, and it is suspected that they are not sufficiently improving to be worth it. These so-called add ons need to be reported to the hfea, which they are not at the moment.

Another issue of concern is that the NHS does too little of the work. It is a postcode lottery, so IVF is private, eye wateringly expensive and commercialised. Of course, one understands that fertility treatment is regarded as of less urgency in the struggle for funding compared with life threatening diseases. But it is a painful situation. Since 1990, the fertility sector has transformed beyond recognition. New technologies, new family structures, new ethical questions, and new challenges for patients.

When I started as chairwoman, the burning question was whether treatment should only be offered to married couples. Now, of course, same sex and single people are provided for by statute. The Hfea itself acknowledges that while much of the 1990 act remains fit for purpose, it has been updated only really once by statute in 2008, and now contains significant technical gaps, outdated consent rules and insufficient regulatory powers, and they have made proposals for modernisation. At the same time, the law governing surrogacy.

The Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, was drafted for a world in which surrogacy was rare, poorly understood and feared. Today, surrogacy no longer raises eyebrows, with the number of children born that way increasing fourfold over the last decade. But with increased use comes increased dangers. The exploitation of poor women, risks to their health, and the baby's welfare. Families are left uncertain in that situation. Clinics are constrained. Judges strain the legislation to make it workable. And the UK risks falling behind in welfare protection.

However, reforming surrogacy and the very concept itself are hotly contested. Contested comprehensive reform of both areas is on the table, and we have before us two reform proposals. First, the Hfea 2023 proposals to modernise the law and secondly, the Law Commission's 2023 recommendations for a new Surrogacy framework. The Hfea proposals tend to an innovative, ethical, patient centred system of reproductive law. The Law Commission's proposals about surrogacy are different. As I've looked into this recently, I am less certain that I was.

That both surrogacy and reproductive law can be resolved now, and certainly not in one statute. Parliament needs to take the lead in scrutiny. The Hfea case is clear the fertility sector has outgrown the 1990 act. The fertility sector has expanded dramatically in size, complexity and commercialisation. Clinics now operate in hybrid, online and in-person models. Donor conceived people have new rights to information and scientific developments, from mitochondrial donation to embryo research have outpaced the statutory framework. Yet the Hfea regulatory powers remain narrow, limiting its ability to enforce patient safety and good practice.

The consequences are inconsistent clinic standards, complex consent rules, legal uncertainty around parenthood, especially in cases of relationship breakdown and posthumous conception, and a regulatory regime that cannot keep pace with innovation. Surrogacy law is far more controversial. The Law Commission's review found consensus that the current law is outdated and unclear. The surrogate remains the legal parent at birth, even in gestational surrogacy, where she has no genetic link to the child intended parents must apply for a parental order, a process that can take six months during which they can't make legal or medical decisions for the child.

So the child's status is uncertain and so is that of the parents. But the interests of the surrogate are not fully considered, not least in that she may be burdened with unwanted legal responsibility or even left literally holding the baby. Meanwhile, cross-border surrogacy is increasing, often involving commercial arrangements that UK law neither permits nor adequately regulates. We've all read concerning stories about poor women, often abroad, for example in Nigeria or the Ukraine, delivering in war zones with uncertain future steps to safeguard the baby.

I have great respect for the Law Commission and their logic is impeccable. But their plans to reform surrogacy would reduce the time a surrogate mother has to change her mind. They would reduce the oversight by the family court and cafcass for domestic arrangements. They would transfer rights to the baby at birth, taking away fresh consent from the surrogate. And they would relax. Other requirements and safeguards, children's rights and mothers rights would suffer if the law tilted too much towards the commissioning parents and away from the surrogate mother.

While the commissions don't propose major changes for cross-border arrangements, they recommend improvements to immigration processes and the recognition of intended fathers for nationality purposes. One wishes that these international transactions could be more controlled or even prevented, but that seems to be impractical. As I get older, my inner Mary Whitehouse has real concern about single male parent surrogacy and the exploitation of women. I think surrogacy welfare checks must be made as stringent as they are for adoption.

When I started to research this speech, I thought that surrogacy law and a reformed HFEA law could be combined in one. I'm still convinced that there are urgent needs for HFEA reforms, even limited. Such as Statutory Instrument provision for the possible extension of a 14 day embryo limit, and protection for new types of gametes. But surrogacy still needs more wariness and consultation, not least because the Hfea seems unwilling to take on surrogacy regulation. Public attitudes and family structures have changed.

The 1998 HFEA act was drafted for a world in which heterosexual couples were the assumed norm. The 2008 amendments widened access for same sex couples, but the underlying structure remains in assumptions that no longer reflect modern family life. So the HFEA 2023 recommendations focus on four key areas. First, strengthening patient safety and regulatory power. They propose expanded inspection and enforcement powers to ensure clinics meet high standards of care. The regulator must have flexible tools to protect patients, for example fining rather than closing clinics.

We need improved access to donor information. Donor conceived individuals can now access identifying information. At age 18. The Hfea proposes going further, removing anonymity from birth for all future donations with appropriate counselling and support. This reflects a growing consensus that identity matters, and that donor conceived people have a right to know their origins. It was once feared that the removal of anonymity would reduce the willingness to donate. But as it's become more acceptable, that fear is diminishing.

Moreover, there are genetic search engines online, enabling people to find their parents without official interference. Frankly, there's no point in keeping the current identity rules, and donors and patients should be warned that it's unlikely that they can remain unknown. We need to clarify the consent rules. The current regime has led to difficult litigation, especially in cases of relationship breakdown or posthumous use of gametes. The Hfea calls for clearer statutory definitions to protect all parties and reduce judicial uncertainty.

Posthumous taking of gametes by violating a corpse is certainly not the way forward, not without consent. There should be automatic record sharing between clinics and the NHS central record system. This fits with the record sharing provision in the NHS modernisation Bill and could be an amendment to it. There should be more reminders to patients that they can donate unused embryos to research. There's even a suggestion of a national embryo research bank. We have to prepare for scientific innovation.

As I said, I'm no scientist, and I will leave the details to the distinguished experts who are speaking in this debate. But there are three areas that impinge, importantly, on the foresight needed in regulation. They are the keeping of embryos beyond the 14 day limit. Stem cell based embryo models and in vitro derived gametes. The extension of the 14 day rule is linked to the research capability required for the latter. It's being reviewed by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is consulting with the public.

In vitro derived gametes are created by reprogramming other cells, for example skin. Under current law, they could be used for research but not reproduction. The advantages are that they would eliminate the need for gamete donation, but they will need separate definition in the Hfea act. Fresh consideration of the definition of parenthood and of course, much more research. The frameworks of regulation must deal with anticipated developments here and its ethics. There are also stem cell based embryo models, which are lab grown models made from human stem cells that mimic early stages of human embryonic development.

They may verge on becoming real human embryos. And the voluntary code of Practice developed in Cambridge needs to be embedded with a view to developing a distinct method of regulating them. Not bad for someone with no biology o level. What must Parliament do? It must modernise. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Parliament should plan by setting up a Select Committee to examine the Hfea proposals to expand regulatory powers, simplify consent rules, modernise donor information provisions and create a flexible framework for future scientific developments.

A select committee also needs to look at the Law Commission surrogacy reforms as a second order issue. I'm not at all sure, as I said, about integrating fertility and surrogacy law into a home. The noble Lady Baroness Merron has said the government is deciding how to take this forward. And there was a bill about this in the Commons last year. Let's start by updating our fertility law. In keeping with the UK's history of ethically cautious and scientifically informed approach, which has made us a global leader.

Will the Minister move forward with a select committee and pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft bill to reform the HFEA? I beg to move. The question is that this motion be agreed to.
12:08
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. My thanks to Baroness Deech for bringing this matter to Deech for bringing this matter to the House at present. HFEA regulations under law that is over regulations under law that is over 35 years old, as identified by the noble Baroness Deech and the legislation is unfit for the purpose in many areas. The Hfea has no flexibility to adjust its powers according to regulatory performance. It needs to reduce the regulatory burden for compliant clinics and focus oversight on those not meeting the required regulatory standards.

The noble Baroness Deech summed it up by not fining, but by fining, not closing clinics. The Hfea wants to achieve the greatest impact with the most proportionate sanction for the fertility sector as it is today, with many licensed clinics being part of large private equity backed groups. A more 70% of patients self-funding should there be a financial penalty, which HFEA cannot do at present. This must be better than removing or suspending a licence. The aim must be to improve compliance while not not impacting on existing patients.

My Lords, the current regulations are also out of date, where patient safety and other areas are concerned. However, it has to be said that treatment in the UK in a UK licensed fertility clinic continues to be very safe. But we should not. My Lords rest on our laurels. The UK needs to stay ahead of technical advances by reforming the legislation. The current law is inflexible and does not easily allow for scientific and medical innovation. In an area where new treatments and extraordinary advances such as stem cell stem cell derived gametes, are around the corner.

The Hfea is still considered globally the gold standard in fertility regulation, and the and the UK must not lose that reputation. My Lords, the UK fertility laws were enacted, I believe, in 1990 and only partially reviewed in the HFE act 2008. After over 35 years. My Lords, it must be time for a new review of aspects of the legislation. And is the Minister able to give any hope that this sensible change can happen? I would also add that it's also very ironic that it's difficult for many patients to access publicly funded fertility fertility treatment in the very country where IVF was originally pioneered.

The noble Lady Deech said she was not this and not that, and spoke about, spoke with great eloquence. And she said there will be many distinguished speakers speaking at length. I do not count myself amongst them, and listen to. With

**** Possible New Speaker ****

eagerness to what they have to say. Yeah. My Lords, I'd like to come down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like to come down to earth a little bit. Let me just first of all suggest to you that first of all suggest to you that infertility is not a disease. It is actually a symptom of something wrong. And that is the basic wrong. And that is the basic problem here. What we are doing here with in vitro fertilisation is to use a medical treatment for a symptom without actually making a diagnosis. That is almost universal, not only in this country and every other country.

And in my view, that's something which is the human fertilisation and embryo quality is not done. And neither has nice. In fact, it's made it very difficult, in fact, to investigate patients to find out what's wrong. And there
12:12
None Portrait 7 Lord Winston (Labour)
-

are at least a hundred causes of infertility, some of which are extremely serious, which actually end up with people being childless end up with people being childless and which can be treated far more cheaply in all sorts of ways, but are not being cheaply at the moment are not being cheaply at the moment because in vitro fertilisation is seen, as we've just heard, the gold standard. Believe me, it is not the gold standard, and indeed it is not well regulated for reasons I'll explain.

It can't be actually in this situation. And one of the issues is this, that really what we have to think about is that should we really be doing some kind of special regulation for one small treatment in the whole medical spectrum? In my sense, that no longer works. The HFEA was of an important body in its time when there was public unrest about the human embryo, and when it was very clear that in vitro fertilisation was going to be a new treatment, it is now absolutely essentially essential that IVF is normalised.

And that's going to be very complicated, but it will be something that this government could do and could regulate far more effectively with the vast things at its at its at its arm. And in vitro. Fertilisation, of course, is increasingly expensive. As the noble Lady, Lady Deech pointed out, because, of course, it is largely in private practice. It is a bit in the National Health Service, but the National Health Service is making a profit out of in vitro fertilisation. One president of the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said to me, don't say too much about NHS IVF.

We need it because it's currently, together with abortion, paying for maternal care. That was what he said as a president of the college, privately, that's a real issue to think about how we fund the health service. And at the moment, private private clinics are making vast sums of money. Clinics are being sold for several hundred million pounds at a time. The equipment in them is probably worth about 15 million at best. And in fact, there's very little understanding or regulation of that.

Nor is the inspections situation sufficient. I know for myself in my own laboratory, I remember one year we had a fantastic review saying this was the best lab they'd ever visited, where only two we were not then treating patients. We were simply doing research with some patients being involved in that research. And then the following year, having changed nothing that was praised. We got a terrible review for no reason other than the fact that, you know, it was a different set of examiners, some of whom were in private practice, some were jealous of what we were doing.

And that actually is a real issue that that that resulted in my closest colleague, Kate Hardie, who was one of the best embryologists in Europe, finally saying, I do not want to do embryo research anymore. She was in tears and she never did. She actually was so depressed by that review that she actually gave up, and she ended up doing other work on the ovary, which did not involve in-vitro fertilisation. We lost one of the best scientists we could have had in that field.

Nobody in. And she had worked papers in nature and in many other journals. We had worked together. For example, we were the first people to do preimplantation diagnosis to look at gene genes in the embryo. And she was one of the four authors on that paper. She gave it up because of what the Hfea had done to her mentally. It suffered. She really suffered that. So I want to make no clear that actually we need something much more serious about this, and we cannot say that it is the envy of the world.

Indeed, much as I respect the noble Lady Baroness Deech, it is not the envy of the world as as a as a so-called expert in in vitro fertilisation, whatever that means, I've. I've visited virtually every civilised country where in vitro fertilisation is done. They laugh at the idea of the HFEA. It doesn't matter where you are. They do not think that our regulations are fit for purpose. And one of the issues, of course, is the way we understand the results of in vitro fertilisation.

I mentioned this in a speech the other day in, in the in the in the speech, on the on the King's speech, when I pointed out that one area of in vitro fertilisation, which is really hopelessly accounted for, is egg freezing. And I showed the data there where there's something like a quarter of a million eggs recorded, recorded on, on, on, on available who have been frozen. And so far some, I think for some 34,000 of those eggs have been frozen unfrozen the last year for the purposes of treatment.

And they number of those produced about 2000 embryos. And actually only 900 babies were produced or 900 pregnancies were produced. We don't even know the number of live births. People don't want to have an embryo transfer. They want to have a baby. That's why they come. And the problem, of course, is that right from the very beginning, we ignore the fact that the treatment is a long process. It starts with assessment of what's wrong. First of all, it should mean a diagnosis wherever possible.

Secondly, it means we have to look at the hormonal control of of ovulation. And particularly, we have to understand that the eggs must be matured properly before they can be treated with sperm. Otherwise you do not get normal embryos. When that's done, then of course, we have the problem of finding perhaps in some cases embryos. But not never. But of course, before we do that, we have to understand male infertility, which is very, very poorly served and is really not dealt with at all by the hfea.

Even though it's an integral part of infertility, we need to have far more expertise in dealing with male fertility. We've just ignored it completely, quite unnecessarily. There's all sorts of research that could be employed, but it does need more research. Once we've got once we've got an egg that seems to be fertilised, we culture it. It is spent. It spends up to five days in a dark medium whose constituents we do not know because, in fact, the constituents of the media, which are available commercially, are secret.

And we've been doing extensive work on this to find out what their ingredients are. My colleague, one of one of my colleagues, Sheba Jarvis, has looked with spectroscopy, and we found 302 different proteins, which we didn't know were in one particular medium. And that, of course, is really quite serious because some of these proteins may be bioactive. They could have an effect on the on on the outcome of culture. After that black box is opened and the embryo is taken out, we then eventually, if it has become produced in embryo, which does.

In some cases, we then end up with an implantation. Hopefully. But of course, all those stages carry a failure rate and that failure rate is not recorded properly in the in the statistics. In fact, when I recently wrote to the H.R. To speak to the Minister, the I got to to write to the Minister. I was told that we don't know how many eggs are being fertilised, frozen. We do not know exactly how many are ending up fertilised. We do not know how many become embryos.

We do not know what happens to those embryos. We only know about the numbers of embryos transferred to the uteruses and the number of and the number of pregnancies. And we do not even really know the number of miscarriages, which seems to be at about 15%. That is not satisfactory, my Lord. In conclusion, I would argue that the HFEA was a great organisation to start with. It is now no longer fit for purpose. We need to bring that back in to make in vitro fertilisation a proper treatment which is recognised so that in fact, then it ceases to be something which is managed by private practitioners at huge advantage to their politics.

That's not something which we should be allowed to happen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston. follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We live in an increasingly digital world. We entrust apps with our fitness data, our menstrual cycle, fitness data, our menstrual cycle, and health care providers frequently offer virtual consultations. It is no surprise, consultations. It is no surprise, therefore, that many people entrust fertility treatment to the number fertility treatment to the number of concierge style online providers that have emerged in recent years, yet our law has not kept pace.

These online providers operate entirely outside the remit of the Hfea. The authority regulates licensed fertility clinics and the treatments that take place within them. But the digital first fertility businesses that sit alongside those physical clinics and play a central role in patients treatment journeys, face no equivalent oversight. This major gap in our fertility law became painfully clear with the closure of the fertility, which had called itself the UK's top virtual IVF clinic. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for tabling this debate today to highlight where the Lord desperately needs to be updated.

Apricity provided patients with online access to qualified medical professionals and a network of clinical services across the country, scheduling appointments, providing expert advice to couples at a vulnerable and emotionally taxing time, and offering flexibility for those unable to consistently access the same location. This can be particularly helpful for patients managing
12:22
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
treatment around work, caring responsibilities or long journeys responsibilities or long journeys to clinics. Two of its clients, Rosie and her husband Andy, had been undergoing IVF treatment been undergoing IVF treatment through Apricity when, just a few days before Christmas 2024, they days before Christmas 2024, they received a mass email informing them that the company would be closing on the 1st of January. By closing on the 1st of January. By that point, they had already invested months in treatment and were waiting for their embryo transfer.

Instead of looking forward to the next stage of their journey, they spent the Christmas period uncertain whether the treatment would continue and what would happen to their embryo. Rosie told me if you're having trouble conceiving, every single month is important. She said it was stunning to learn that the Hfea had no remit to step in and help us. We were effectively abandoned when digital first services closed. There are no guarantees for patients, and couples like us are left fighting to protect our embryo, our money and our chance of having a much wanted child.

My Lords, Rosie's experience is not an isolated one. Many people who had entrusted Apricity with their hopes of having a family were left in fear that they may not receive their money back, and they may not be able to continue afford continuing treatment with another provider. They're unlikely to know that the law, as it stands, means the Hfea can only regulate UK licensed fertility clinics, which are the physical premises where the treatments take place. Patients assume that when a company is central to the delivery of their fertility treatment, there will be regulatory oversight and protections.

If that company fails. At present, that assumption is not always correct. The Hfea itself has recognised this. One of its recommendations in the 2023 report on modernising fertility regulation was that the act should be revised to accommodate developments in the way fertility services are provided. Following a closure. The Hfea chief executive, Peter Thompson, warned that fertility legislation was more than 30 years old and had failed to keep pace with the way that modern life is organised. Around the time of a closure in early 2025, I asked the noble Baroness, the Minister Merryn, whether the government would review HFEA power to ensure it was appropriate for a digital age.

The government responded that they would meet with the Hfea chair and CEO to discuss the regulatory challenges they face, and that they were considering HFEA priorities. Should the opportunity for legislative reform arise. In June 2025, I was told in a subsequent written question that the government was considering HFEA priorities and will decide how to take this forward at the earliest opportunity. Seven months later, in January 2026, the government position had moved no further and they answered that they will decide how they might move forward.

My Lords, that is not good enough. The gap is clear. The HFEA has set out its recommendations. Patients have been left without protection. The only thing missing is government action. May I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, why, given the clear gap exposed by a closure and the HFEA own recommendation for reform, has the government still not set out a timetable for the legislation? Can she now tell the House when the government intends to bring forward proposals to ensure that digital and concierge style fertility providers are brought within an appropriate regulatory framework? My Lords, our fertility laws are not fit for the digital age, and women and couples hoping for a family deserve so much better.

My Lords, I recognise the depth of expertise in this chamber and also that my background isn't a scientific one. However, it's incumbent on all of us to engage in these crucial issues which hold wide significance and implication. I approach this debate in the knowledge of what it is to long for
12:26
Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford (Bishops)
-
-
children deeply. I'm profoundly grateful for the gift of my own three children, following the experience of difficult and intrusive treatment over many years, including miscarriages and several including miscarriages and several cycles of IVF. Indeed, if I may be personal, I was for a number of years a patient under the care of years a patient under the care of the noble Lord Winston, for whom I have both affection and great admiration, and to whose speech I admiration, and to whose speech I listened very carefully indeed.

I want to recognise the highly complex and agonising experiences of infertility that many go through, and of what it's like to have an unfulfilled longing for a child. This debate speaks into a profoundly challenging scientific, moral, legal and emotional context. I recognise that the lives of my children are the result of extraordinary scientific and medical advances. But ultimately, like any child, they are a remarkable gift from God. Throughout the treatment, I was always aware that they were never a right of mine to be claimed.

Good legislation, thoughtful limits and sober weighing of the implications of those limits is vital if we're to continue responsibly in this work with clarity for all. Indeed, I know personally the importance of those limits to temper what can be a very human dimension, which, if unchecked, can lead to desperation and a willingness to do anything to have a child. Turning to the proposed changes to the law from the HFEA in their 2023 report, the policy team of the Church of England responded to the consultation about the recommendations put forward at the time, and which I'm also drawing on.

They and I recognise the important issues highlighted and the need for a regulatory update, especially around patient safety licensing and the HFEA ability to incentivise compliance within fertility clinics. With the development of the online world, the landscape for people accessing information and selecting their options is changing significantly. There's much misleading advertising on social media, including claims about guaranteed success for IVF treatment on such a highly emotional and charged issue. This is deeply troubling, and there's a clear case to be made for ensuring stricter regulation of services.

The moves towards patient safety and the HFEA having sufficient powers to take action where patient safety is at risk also seem clear to me. There are some proposals in the Hfea report, however, which I believe must be considered with more caution. Firstly, the report highlights the 14 day limit on embryo experimentation as something that could be changed in light of scientific developments. In 2003, the General Synod of the Church of England affirmed the sanctity of the human embryo and therefore the need to treat it with profound respect.

Though I recognise the possibility for research into the development of embryos between 14 to 28 days, and from that the possibility of therapeutic benefit. It remains the case that individuation and identity is significant to moral status. And so I believe that the 14 day limit should not be overstepped. Secondly, the report proposes changes to the way consent is obtained in order to prioritise patient safety and access to the best possible care, it seems vital that information can be shared with other healthcare providers.

My caution is around the proposals related to changing the consent approach to one which is package based. Anyone undergoing or considering fertility treatment and having a conversation with a specialist is likely to be experiencing intense stress and possible feelings of overwhelm. That is precisely why it's essential they understand absolutely what they're proceeding with. Each part of the process is weighty and should be considered carefully according to the conscience of the individual or couple concerned. It is right, proper and honouring of them to ensure that this weighing up is enabled and facilitated.

Similarly, the proposed change to the consent regime for research on embryos. If a decision has been made to donate embryos to scientific research, there's likely to be a variety of preferences and approaches, though some may be content for their embryos to be used for any available research. This won't be the case for everyone maintaining the requirement for consent to each named project will be important for some, and so should not, I believe, be overlooked. I've touched on just a handful of issues for consideration in this complex and important debate, but what is clear, my Lords, is that if legislation is to be brought, it must be preceded by full consultation, which facilitates public understanding and engagement.

These are matters not only of personal importance, though I understand that dimension all too well, but of societal importance. And any proposals to change the law must be treated both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with compassion and with great care. My Lords, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble prelate. That was very moving, and I'm very pleased that her three children are in this world. Thanks to Nadia Lord in this world. Thanks to Nadia Lord Winston. That's amazing. And I will say, I confess, my Mary Whitehouse say, I confess, my Mary Whitehouse is hovering around at the moment too. So I agree with you. I'm going to slightly change the topic here, because I think that we can't really talk about fertility policy without talking about prevention.

I have personal family experience of going through not myself, but
12:32
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
-
through IVF experience. It's a wild west. It's really horrible. The chequebook was extremely strained. The result was great, but my God, The result was great, but my God, that was difficult. And all I see in young people I know is that this is a problem that's getting worse. is a problem that's getting worse. I do buy into the argument that women want children later. Women work. We haven't got the cost of living, but actually there is living, but actually there is something else going on, and that's something is plastics, because they're not just a waste problem, they're not just a waste problem, they are a chemical problem.

The public treats plastic as litter, but plastics are very kind of complex chemical exposure. They migrate from packaging, from consumer goods, from medical products into us, through what we were, through the dust, through our skin. There are 16,000 different chemicals in everyday plastics. And right now we only know about 6000 of them. Reproductive development is particularly sensitive to hormone disruption, which is caused by chemicals. Fertility, I think, as we know, is governed by hormones. They tell organs when to grow, when to develop, when to reproduce, and if these messages are disturbed during pregnancy or infancy or puberty, the consequences can last for decades.

This is why endocrine disrupting chemicals deserve particular attention. In a fertility debate. Declining sperm quality is not just about, you know, medical private offices. It may be an early warning signal. Relevant research of 185 studies found that a 52% decline in sperm concentration and a 59% percent decline in total sperm count among a completely cross group of men from North Africa, Europe and Australia and New Zealand between 73 and 2011. This was updated in 2023, and they found the same sort of decline 51% 62%, with a total sperm count between 1973 and 19 and 2018.

With the evidence that this is accelerating. These are phthalates, which are a priority because their impact on reproductive evidence is particularly strong. They are used to make plastic fibres, their presence present in products that touch food bodies and babies. And they are the clearest, chemical, clearest evidence of reproductive concern. Many studies and I can supply any noble Lord with huge research details. It's been very difficult trying to chop this down to seven minutes. Have shown that prenatal phthalate exposure at environmental levels is associated with altered male reproductive development, particularly if measured through the anogenital distance.

For people undergoing fertility treatment, chemical exposure isn't an abstract issue. It's not just men who are affected. In Singapore, a preconception cohort, they found that higher PFAs exposures were associated with decreased fertility in women, and another 2024 report from the Endocrine Society summarises evidence that BPA free diets are linked with reduced egg quality and other aspects of egg viability. The thing is, my Lords, fertility doesn't end with conception. A fertility policy that involves miscarriage, preterm placental health and early development is incomplete.

The first thousand days from conception to age two, where the period is the periods when plastic associated chemicals will do their most harm. And one global estimate says that 1.97 million preterm births in 2018 were due to late exposure. The thing is that in tiny babies and tiny bodies, a tiny amount makes a big difference. It might not make a big difference to me or you, but it makes a little difference to that foetus. And we're not talking here about an industrial accident.

This is every day. It's in our kitchen, it's in our supermarkets. But we cannot expect women and men to understand what things are in the saucepans and the things inside the milk bottles. And I'm running out of time. For instance, all 20 brands of baby bottles and 13 brands of sippy cups have tested have released BPA and bpps under test conditions, and polypropylene infant feeding bottles released microplastics at levels of up to 16.2 million particles per litre. Ironically and very sadly, sterilisation and high temperature actually increase the way that plastic chemicals are released into whatever product is around.

And in a store. Recently, the most scientific point was if you give your baby those tiny little yoghurt pots, that food has had more exposure to plastic than if you bought a large family size. So what it says this is that we can't what we are doing regulate one chemical at a time. It's not a case of saying this chemical is no good. Put it in place of another one and the government should now move from reassurance to regulation of the whole lot.

Average person can't expect to inspect the chemistry of a can lining, so the rules have to be set upstream. And the European Chemicals Agency is considering a broad restriction of all of these chemicals moving entirely beyond a substance by substance individual plan. So I ask the Minister, will the government commit to a government review of plastic associated chemicals and reproductive health as part of any wider review of fertility treatment and regulation, and develop a UK plan on endocrine disrupting chemicals, fertility and pregnancy, including all the related chemicals, and strengthen UK reach restrictions.

If we are serious about fertility, we cannot only fund the treatment after the harm has happened. This is something that is rising, that is real. Chemicals are made by fossil fuel industries. At the moment, 25% of fossil fuels go into plastics. This number is rising, while fossil fuels going into industrial combustion engines is falling. I leave you on one small anecdote. I went to see the lovely NHS doctor here the other day because I had a tick and I didn't know if I needed antibiotics, and I was chatting to him and I said, what do you do when you're not here? And he said, I run a men's clinic.

And I said, what do you do in your men's clinic? He said, it's from men from 18 to 32. And he said, it's very strange. All they want is HRT. And I said, what? And he said, yeah, they want testosterone. That's because their bodies are lacking in testosterone. And if you don't have testosterone, your sperm aren't as mobile, your sperm aren't as healthy, and your sexual drive is not as good. He said they were both depressed, but they perked up after that. We have a problem that is ours to fix and ours not to continue.
12:39
Baroness Nargund Portrait Baroness Nargund (Labour)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Boycott. I noble Lady Baroness Boycott. I thank the noble Lady Baroness Deech for securing this very important for securing this very important debate. I declare an interest as a board member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and as someone who has previously led IVF and fertility units for over three decades, this debate is rooted in my long standing and strong commitment to promoting the health and safety of women, and the belief that fertility treatment has raised the standard in the UK.

My Lords, I've been proud to serve in the fertility sector for most of my career and seen IVF move from a pioneering treatment to a routine service in our health care, with around one in every 32 births in the UK, that is one child in every classroom now resulting from IVF, and I have also seen the important role the regulation has played in maintaining public trust and improving standards of care. My Lords, it is true that the UK regulatory framework, the first in the world, is considered as a gold standard across the world and it has been a genuine success.

Some examples include the collaborative work that the Hfea has done to reduce multiple births from from IVF treatment from 30% in 1990s to 3% now. It has also given the data the use of data to publish outcomes, including trends for and highlighting inequalities in access and outcomes from IVF treatment for Black and Asian patients. In addition, the Hfea provides robust, impartial and accurate data to help with the commissioning for NHS patients and also to patients patients.

In general, infertility is a disease, my Lords, as quoted as stated by the World Health Organisation and IVF is an essential treatment for many. We must celebrate the success of our regulatory framework and it is time to modernise it to better protect patients in a changing fertility sector. The Hfea has set out three practical areas for reform stronger patient protection regulation that reflects the changing fertility sector and more proportionate sanctions. I support all three proposals.

I want to view them through the lens of something. I have argued for many years that HFEA or Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act must recognise not only the welfare of the child, but also the safety and protection of the woman undergoing treatment. My Lord Swire fertility treatment creates families. The burden of treatment falls overwhelmingly on women. Women undergo multiple and often invasive investigations. Daily hormone injections during the treatment, outpatient surgical procedures suffer from side effects and potential complications of these treatments, and also the emotional and financial strain that accompanies them.

Yet despite carrying so much of the burden, patient protection remains largely absent from the legislation that governs our fertility treatment. At the moment, the act was built around embryo and the future child. The next generation of reform must explicitly state safety and protection of the patient. At the heart of the act, more than 52,000 patients undergo IVF treatment each year, and 70% pay for it. Privately navigating a complex commercial market at a time of considerable vulnerability.

The absence of explicit reference to the patient protection limits the regulator's ability to act when patients are offered and encouraged to pay for treatment. Add ons that not only lack sufficient evidence of benefit, but some with evidence of harm, or when a small number of clinics maintain persistently high multiple birth rates. Despite known risks to mothers and babies. When the Act was drafted, fertility treatment largely took place within a single licensed clinic. Today, services are increasingly fragmented and delivered across multiple sites, including online.

Patients reasonably assume that if a service is service presents itself as a fertility provider, it is regulated by the HFEA. However, as Baroness O'Loan mentioned, when one of the prominent online providers closed recently, patients were left with no recourse to the regulator they believed had been protecting them. Protection must follow the patient, not the premises. My Lords, putting the patient protection at the heart of the regulation means giving the regulators proportionate tools to intervene when things go wrong.

At present, the HFEA is principal sanction is to suspend or to remove a clinic's licence. In many cases, a financial penalty would be a more proportionate and a patient centred response. A licence suspension can disrupt treatment for patients in the middle of their fertility journey. Financial penalties can drive improvement when minimising harm to the very people. The regulator is there to protect. My Lords, women move between fertility services, maternity services and the wider NHS. Yet these parts of the system too often operate separately and do not communicate to each other.

I have spoken previously in this House about the proportionate opportunities created by the single patient record. If we are serious about protecting patients during the entire reproductive journey, we need a more joined up approach in understanding what's happening. Better linkage between the Hfea and NHS data would improve patient safety and help us understand complications and long term outcomes, and ensure women are not lost between the systems. We also need HFEA and to have increased information powers.

We owe it to women to make sure that the Hfea has more powers and they are able to protect. Therefore, there is an urgent need to modernise the HFEA act to. In order to protect patient safety and ensure the continuity of care and hold clinics with using unproven and potentially harmful add ons to account. The responsibility must be matched by power. The HFEA proposals are practical, proportionate and ready. And can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, to urge our government to act on them? My Lords.
12:47
Baroness Gerada Portrait Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)
-
-
I pay tribute. >> To Baroness Deech for securing this important debate. Before I start, I'd just like to clarify one start, I'd just like to clarify one issue. About 98% of abortion treatment is carried out in the not for profit sector, funded around about 98% by the NHS. I have to say that the NHS hospitals do not make a profit from abortion care. I'd also like to say that in my experience, in fertility clinics that were run through, the NHS used to take both co-payments, i.e.

self-payment and not for payment, and they cross, fertilise and cross funded in order that women who are more deprived could actually get either NHS treatment or cheap treatment. So I'd just like to say I've spent decades looking after women and helping them navigate a fertility system that too often fails them. And at the root of that failure lies a simple truth. This outdated law governing fertility treatment. And as Baroness Deech and others have already said, this groundbreaking regulatory framework that was set up in the 1990s was groundbreaking.

It was the first of its kind. And as a young GP at the time, I really welcomed it. But the law was enacted, as we've heard before, the promotion of unnecessary and non-essential add ons. They just didn't exist, such as Pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy. And that is abnormal number of chromosomes or endometrial scratches, which is exactly as it sounds, scratching the the uterus in order to create a scar or the adjunctive use of quite a dangerous hormone growth hormone in the belief that it creates ovarian stimulation and increases your chances of conception, or before the rise, as we've heard of virtual clinics or of AI, embryonic selection, the Hfea itself, the architect of this law, has told us it's no longer fit for purpose, that the law has not kept pace with the reality of modern care, and has left a legislative vacuum.

This House should listen to HFEA. I just want to mention a composite patient, if I may, a patient drawn from many years of my clinical experience. Sarah was 38. As she walked into her fertility clinic. She and her partner had spent years trying to conceive years of hope, disappointment and quiet grief. By the time she sat down in that consultation room, she was someone who had run out of options, and what happened next was not illegal. It was not even unusual.

Sarah was offered a series of add ons to her IVF treatment embryo glue, immune therapies, time lapsed imaging supplements and acupuncture. Each was presented as something she could have. None were framed as essential, and yet declining them felt impossible. When you are desperate and someone in a white coat suggests something might help, how can you say no? A little bit like the testosterone for men who are depressed, the clinic reminded her more than once. That time was precious.

At her age, every failed cycle brought a new suggestion and another invoice. And by the time Sarah and her partner had spent nearly £30,000 with still no baby, they spent not on treatment, as she reflected later, but on hope. Hope that had been carefully packaged and endlessly sold. Sarah's story is not rare. It is many. In many clinics it is routine. Individuals such as Sarah, who are desperate to have a child, are extremely vulnerable, and many find that they are prepared to do anything and pay for anything to realise their dream of becoming parents.

And when given a shopping list of costly add ons, some harmless but many invasive and time consuming most patients. And according to HFEA, 73% of patients go to extraordinary lengths to raise the necessary funds only to find that their hopes are never realised. Many of these are pure marketing and clinically speaking and quoting a professor UCL nonsense. In 2023, the Hfea introduced a new 5.5 point rating scheme for add on, which are well received, but they remain a regulatory sticking plaster on a structurally legislative wound.

The HFEA, as we've heard, has limited powers to intervene and no explicit statutory principle of patient protection within the 1990 act. Without legislative backing, it lacked enforcement power across modern healthcare regulation. Modern healthcare regulation. The needs and interests of the patient sit at the centre of that regulation. Fertility law has not kept pace. That must change. Patients must be told clearly before they pay. When a treatment is not evidence based. Informed consent, my Lords, is not a courtesy.

It is a right and it is a legal and ethical obligation. So why are so many women in the private system in the first place? Because the NHS system has collapsed, the proportion of NHS IVF cycles has fallen from just under 30% to its lowest level since 2008. And of the very few integrated care boards that actually do provide nice approved IVF, that has decreased as well. But even when they do provide it, which is usually only one cycle, and as in my borough, my own borough in Lambeth, it excludes couples who have had a child by a previous relationship or the same relation, irrespective of what how old that child is or where that child resides.

Now imagine, my Lords, you've had a child in an abusive relationship way back when. That child is now living with with the father of that or the mother, and you have no access to that child at all. And you may not have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

had for 20 years, but you are excluded from IVF. That does not sound like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That does not sound like fairness. We've heard about the digital revolution and the fact that fertility, the law has not that fertility, the law has not kept up with that. In 2023, HFEA published Modernising Fertility Law published Modernising Fertility Law and it proposed it proposal centres around three clear, clear areas and I commend them to house patient protection as an explicit principle of the act, regulation of online and fertility, virtual fertility services and power to levy financial penalties. In conclusion, my Lord, my Lords, the HFEA has already done much of the analytical work.

What is needed now is a government willing to move from consideration to commitment, and a timetable that women and their partners can hold on to. Women and their partners navigating fertility treatment are not seeking special treatment. They are seeking honest information, equitable access and a legal framework that reflects the world that we currently live in. This is the least that this government should be willing to deliver. Thank you. My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Deech for bringing these important questions to the House.

Women's health, their fertility, their experience of motherhood. These matters are rarely given the attention they deserve, and I'm hugely grateful to the for the opportunity to learn from the
12:54
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson Portrait Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Conservative)
-
-
expertise of so many of your Lordships on these issues today. I'd like to speak on surrogacy. I I'd like to speak on surrogacy. I want to begin by acknowledging the wonderful, loving families that have been created through surrogacy and the generosity of spirit that and the generosity of spirit that can motivate altruistic surrogates. As we've heard from the noble Lady, the Law Commission has proposed the Law Commission has proposed reforms to the laws governing domestic surrogacy. They've made many important recommendations. many important recommendations.

However, they were not tasked with considering the policy challenges or the ethics of surrogacy, as the Law Commission themselves say. Nor does their work cover international surrogacy. My Lords, the practice of surrogacy in this country is growing and changing. So I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Deech, that we need to stand back and consider the implications further before we legislate. I think there are four fundamental questions to answer first. And here I'm starting with first principles. Do we stand by our current position that surrogacy.

Surrogacy should be legal? Surrogacy has been legal in this country for many years and is increasingly used as a means of assisting conception. However, many European countries oppose it. France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland all prohibit surrogacy on the grounds that it's incompatible with human dignity and amounts to the commodification of women's bodies. India, Thailand and Nepal have all moved to ban or severely restrict surrogacy. After seeing the reality of the industry at scale. Low income women taking on high risk pregnancies for wealthy foreigners.

Raheem Assalam, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, argues that surrogacy reduces women and children, including girls, to mere commodities, stripping them of their equality and dignity and encouraging their exploitation and abuse. Of course, many completely disagree with this analysis, and a full debate in this country may reveal that our sensibilities are closer to the Americans than to the Europeans on this issue. Some may conclude that surrogacy poses no challenges whatsoever to female equality or human dignity.

Others may conclude that there are challenges, but these can be dealt with through the right legal and regulatory framework. Either way, we need a wider and deeper discussion before we change the law. Second, if we conclude that surrogacy is an acceptable practice, what safeguards do we need to protect the women who become surrogate mothers? Take consent as one example. There's no legal requirement for a woman to have given birth before becoming a surrogate mother, and the Law Commission doesn't propose it.

Is that right? Do you need to know what pregnancy and birth will entail in order to give informed consent? Canadian research suggests gestational surrogate mothers carry three times the risk of severe complications compared to unassisted pregnancies. Are women properly informed about these risks? Even more difficult, how do we feel about money changing hands? It has long been a criminal offence to buy or sell organs for transplantation in this country, and since 2022, it's been an offence for UK residents to do so anywhere in the world.

The risk of exploitation is deemed too great, but we treat surrogacy differently. UK residents are free to enter commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad, and while third party organisations cannot profit from surrogacy services here, surrogate mothers do receive payments from commissioning parents. These are meant to cover expenses, but they are uncapped and unregulated. That's unlike the payments allowed for egg and sperm donors, which are capped by the hfea precisely to prevent a market in human gametes. We do not have reliable data on average payments to surrogate mothers.

We do know they can run to tens of thousands of pounds. They can be paid in regular monthly instalments and they are not tied to specific expenses. We also know that as maternity action described, there is generally a power imbalance between surrogate mothers and intended parents. Intended parents tend to be older, wealthier, better educated and employed in higher status jobs than surrogate mothers. My Lords, given that structural context. What safeguards do we need to prevent the exploitation of women? The Law Commission, rightly, in my view, proposed regulating expenses, but they do not propose capping them.

Is that sufficient? And if so, who has the expertise and resources to regulate those payments? Since the Hfea have said they do not. Further thought on safeguards are clearly needed. My third question is, do we believe that there should be any restrictions whatsoever on who may commission babies take age in 2025? Our courts considered cases involving commissioning parents in their 70s. There is no upper age limit for commissioning parents, and the Law Commission does propose one. In one case, the judge noted plainly that the child would experience the loss and grief of elderly or incapacitated parents during their childhood.

Do we believe that all adults should be able to have the option of commissioning surrogate mothers? Or do we believe that there should be some checks or restrictions commissioning? Parents may rightly note that biological fatherhood has no age limit, and that other couples face no suitability checks before conceiving. That is, of course, true. On the other hand, we do have extremely strict frameworks for governing adoption, which also involves the separation of the child from its birth family, which is the more appropriate model for surrogacy.

My fourth and final question is what do children need? Even if a surrogate mother is consenting freely and the commissioning parents will provide a loving home? How do we centre the child in this practice? In all other circumstances, we would consider it traumatic for a newborn to be removed from its birth mother. Does that trauma exist for babies born to surrogate mothers? The adoption framework has evolved over decades, as we've come to understand, often painfully, that questions of identity and origin matter deeply to children as they grow.

Many children born to surrogates will never see their birth mothers again. Does that matter? And if it does matter, how can we best support them? What those children need from us is expertise in child development expertise that is generally missing in this debate so far. My Lords, these are very sensitive and emotive questions, but they are hugely important for the women and children involved. And so if this government or a future one concludes that reform of surrogacy is the right path, I very much hope that they will also commit to significantly more work, a full, open and as the Bishop of Chelmsford described, a compassionate debate on these issues before the legislation comes to this House.

My Lords, I'd like to thank the noble Lady Baroness Deech for bringing forward this important short debate and her work in this area, and the richness of the debate from noble Lords across the House, and with such expertise and the personal contribution from the Bishop of Chelmsford. 1 in 7
13:01
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
couples may have difficulty conceiving and, as Baroness Nargund stated, there is now roughly one stated, there is now roughly one IVF child in every classroom, with IVF births making up around 1 in 32 IVF births making up around 1 in 32 of UK births and the number of patients having fertility treatment has increased over the last 30 has increased over the last 30 years, with over 52,000 in 2023. Now, Lord Winston stated that there Now, Lord Winston stated that there are over 100 reasons for infertility, which are not always investigated.

But Baroness Boycott really highlighted for us the issue of plastics and chemicals and their impact on fertility. And as we've heard today, there is a postcode lottery of access to IVF and fertility services across the country, and this is undermining the hopes and family life of many couples. Patients in England are struggling to access publicly funded IVF, despite nice recommendations that have been in place since 2004 that the NHS should offer an initial three full cycles of IVF treatment to any woman under the age of 40.

And in a briefing from the Progress Educational Trust, it highlighted that only two out of the 42 integrated care boards in England comply with the Nice fertility guidelines, and 19 offer only a partial IVF cycle, not even a full cycle. So this means stopping treatment before all of the viable embryos already created have been transferred. So I think it's really crucial that people can expect high quality fertility treatment wherever they live, rather than being priced out of having children just because of their postcode and their local icbs policy at that time.

So could the noble Lady, the Minister, advise, if the government has considered following Wales and Scotland in centralising commissioning for IVF, rather than the current postcode lottery approach, a specific inequality that's not been mentioned today still exists for the LGBTQ plus community in England. NHS funded access to IVF is available only to women who have not conceived after two years of regular unprotected intercourse or 12 cycles of artificial insemination. But in practice, that requires all lesbian couples to pay for artificial insemination cycles before becoming eligible for NHS funded IVF.

That is a considerable financial barrier for many of those couples, given that cycles can cost thousands of pounds. And despite the previous government's women's health strategy pledging to remove that requirement for lesbian couples, the rollout has been at a snail's pace. And as of April 2024, which was the last data I could find, only four of the 42 integrated care boards in England have implemented this. And, you know, there should be equitable access to IVF for all lesbian couples who are looking to start a family.

So could the noble Lady, the Minister, update the House on what work the Department is undertaking to ensure that the requirement is rolled out across all icbs. Now the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority, as we discussed it, was established back in 1991 and was the first regulatory body of this kind in the world. But as we have been discussing, a lot has changed since 1991. Both scientific developments and also societal attitudes. And whilst the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was last amended in 2008, there has been no significant change to how the FHE regulates.

Despite the significant changes to the UK fertility sector. And as we've heard so clearly today, whilst much of the original 1990 act remains fit for purpose, in terms of the regulatory framework, it is not flexible enough and requires change to deal with that shift to fertility services that are being provided online, a greater range of powers to improve compliance and protect patients as needed, and particularly given that there are so limited access to IVF on the NHS, with 73% of treatment being privately funded, this needs urgent update to regulation and with groups of private clinics, and changes the types of facility, fertility services and related services being offered.

As we've heard outlined about the add ons from Baroness Deech, Baroness O'Loan, Baroness Nargund and Baroness Gerada described in detail some of those so-called add ons. It's really important. Patients can have confidence, full confidence that the services they are paying for are carefully and thoroughly regulated and are safe and adding value, whether you know it's in a physical clinic or online. Now, one area I was surprised to read about in preparing for this debate is that patient specific fertility treatment information has sort of almost an exceptional status, with pretty much the only professionals able to access those patient specific fertility treatment information records.

Our staff at the relevant fertility clinic and staff at the Hfea. But this may compromise patient safety, as we've heard, and I'm not sure how this will fit with the new proposed patient record, as Baroness Nargund also raised. So perhaps the Minister could comment on that. As my noble friend Lord Palmer of Charles Hill talked about, that the legislation is now unfit for today. The HFEA proposals for reform relate to a number of areas. Patient protection and safety, effectively regulation, regulating a changing sector and affecting effective and proportionate sanctions, including financial.

The Hfea wishes to match its regulatory oversight to the risks involved in a changing sector. This seems like a proportionate approach to me and the Hfea, as we've heard, published their proposed changes back in autumn 2023 some time ago. So perhaps the noble Lady, the Minister, could advise when the government will be responding in full to these proposals. I'm sure we'd be happy with the season rather than a specific date. But the other side of this is the need for research, and there is a clear desire for the Hfea to be able to permit generic consent to be given by patients for the use of their embryos.

In research, I think many patients would want their embryos to be used to help science in this area, and currently this isn't permitted. Of course, it's important we have an ethical framework for embryo research. But will the government consider any movement in this area regarding general consent? We've heard today about other important issues, such as around surrogacy and the current law, which is some 40 years old. This is a complex area and it needs careful consideration, as Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson has set out so clearly, and discuss what's going on in the so-called industry.

But for those who wish to start a family and are having trouble conceiving, or in a same sex relationship or by themselves, the role of IVF becomes an absolute lifeline. You know, we were ahead of the game with the first IVF baby born in the UK in 1978. We need to be looking to update some areas to ensure that they are fit for purpose for the 21st century and the digital world, and to help people to have the child and children they desire. I look forward to hearing the minister's response to this important debate.
13:09
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, please let me thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for her focus on this subject. Drawing on her extensive experience in the sector, including chairing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for eight years, I must also highlight the deep knowledge of the noble Baroness Anelay Nargund, who combines her role as the lead consultant for reproductive medicine services at Saint George's Hospital, for being an honorary professor of women's health at the University of London, an international advisory board member of The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Women's Health Journal, and was the founder, CEO and now medical director of a fertility clinic.

My Lords, the UK has long been regarded as a world leader in the regulation of fertility treatment and embryo research. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was landmark legislation. It established a framework that balanced scientific innovation, ethical oversight and public confidence in a way that was pioneering at the time. Much of that framework remains strong. The principle that the embryo merits special legal and ethical status continues to command cross-party support. Having treatment in licensed clinics remains safe, with incident rates low even as IVF is becoming increasingly common.

May I please suggest, in line with other noble Lords, that the question before your Lordships House is whether a framework designed in the early 1990s is appropriate for the fertility sector as it exists in 2026? And on that question, there is an increasing consensus that it is not, as was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the sector has changed fundamentally. Around 1 in 32 births in the United Kingdom now result from IVF. And as the noble Lord, Lord Winston flagged, fertility treatment is no longer marginal or exceptional medicine.

It is close to mainstream healthcare and for many, a central route to family formation. But while demand and complexity have increased, the structure of provision has shifted dramatically. Treatment is now predominantly privately funded, which, whilst playing a positive role in increasing capacity and reducing pressure on the NHS, raises concerns for some and increasingly, elements of fertility care are delivered through online or hybrid virtual clinic models that sit outside the traditional boundaries of regulation. This is creating a system that is more nuanced and potentially harder for patients to navigate.

The Hfea itself has argued that the current legislative framework is increasingly out of step with the modern fertility sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, highlighted the growth of online fertility services offer operating beyond the traditional licensed clinic model, and the Hfea has argued that its enforcement powers are no longer sufficiently flexible and has proposed that the act should contain an explicit, overarching focus on patient protection. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chelmsford, talked about social media disinformation.

My noble kinswoman, the noble Baroness Lady Boycott, referenced the Wild West and the noble Baroness. Lady Gerada pointed to hope that has been sold and the regulatory gaps become particularly visible in relation to online fertility services, where we understand that patients are increasingly looking for advice from charity websites, social media, online forums and clinic websites, patients are increasingly encountering providers that market themselves as offering fertility services, but key clinical interventions take place elsewhere, sometimes under separate regulatory agreements and sometimes outside clear regulatory oversight.

Altogether, patients may reasonably assume that a service presenting itself as a clinic equivalent is fully regulated. But as the noble Baroness Lady Nagrand, agreed, it can be a mistake to make assumptions. The fertility sector has evolved rapidly, with new online models and commercial networks that do not fit neatly within the assumptions of the 1990 act. This is precisely the kind of gap that undermines transparency and public confidence. Notwithstanding the related issue concerning surrogacy reform, the noble Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson gave us a deep and informed insight into the topic of surrogacy, and the Law Commission has proposed reforms which would, for some arrangements, transfer legal parenthood to the intended parents from birth place.

Greater reliance on consent given before conception, and reduce the role currently played by the courts and the Children and Family Court. Advisory and support service after birth. Supporters argue that these changes would provide greater certainty for intended parents and children. However, others have questioned whether they would weaken important safeguards by reducing the significance of Post-birth consent and judicial oversight. Some are concerned that the proposals would make it more difficult for a surrogate mother to change her mind and move away from the long established principle that the woman who gives birth is initially recognised as the child's legal mother.

These concerns arise against the backdrop of a growing international surrogacy market. Increasing numbers of British residents enter into commercial surrogacy arrangements overseas, raising wider questions around child protection, exploitation and the legal recognition of arrangements that would just simply not be permitted here. There are also legitimate questions about whether reforms designed to expand domestic surrogacy arrangements, including proposals allowing regulated organisations to recruit surrogate mothers, command public support as reproductive technologies continue to evolve. Parliamentary oversight of embryo research and emerging technologies must remain central.

And given the government's decision not to currently proceed with the Law Commission's proposals, can the noble Baroness, the Minister, Lady Blake, clarify whether the government has reached a new, settled view on surrogacy reform and what safeguards it considers essential in any future review of the law. And whilst regulation is one challenge facing the sector, access and consistency of access also remains an issue. Despite updated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommending up to three NHS funded IVF cycles for eligible women under 40, access remains highly variable across England because icbs are not required to implement that guidance and as a result, we continue to see variations in fertility treatment.

The noble Baroness, lady Dick, suggested a postcode lottery. His Majesty's loyal opposition recognises that the government has stated that Icbs should consider and reflect National Institute guidance, and we welcome efforts to improve consistency through NHS England. But there remains a clear gap between guidance and enforceable entitlement entitlement. That inconsistency sits uneasily alongside the government's own renewed women's Health Strategy for England, which commits to ensuring that every woman, I quote, can easily access fertility services and places a strong emphasis on consistency of care and patient experience.

That commitment is, of course, most welcome, but it does raise a number of important questions because while some icbs do offer up to three NHS funded IVF cycles in line with nice guidance, what plans are there to help or encourage those icbs which offer only one NHS funded IVF cycle or impose additional eligibility restrictions, which was so well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada and the noble Baroness, lady Pidgeon. If patient experience is to be placed at the centre of women's health policy, does the government plan to embed patient protection explicitly within fertility legislation? As the Hfea has proposed to close? My Lords, please allow me to suggest that the strength of the 1990 act was not only its technical design, but its willingness to confront emerging science and changing societal realities head on.

The fertility sector has changed profoundly since then. It is more commercial, more technologically complex and more integrated with digital service delivery. Scientific techniques are evolving rapidly, and the boundaries of what constitutes fertility treatment are no longer as clearly defined as they once were. The HFEA reform proposals are therefore measured and pragmatic. They do not seek to dismantle the existing system, but to modernise it through strengthening patient protection, clarifying regulatory scope and introducing more proportionate enforcement tools. At their core, these proposals are about ensuring that regulation keeps pace with reality.

The United Kingdom became a global leader in this field because it combined scientific advancement with ethics and public trust, and long may that continue.
13:20
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I say that I'm very. Pleased to respond to this debate, particularly regarding the debate, particularly regarding the adequacy of law on the regulation of family of fertility treatment. And can I thank the noble Lady Baroness Deech for raising this topical and important matter, and also for her thoughtful and wide reaching comments, which framed, I think, the debate that followed. As always, I have to start with the caveat that I probably won't be able to answer everything that has been raised today in the time that I have, but always happy to write to noble Lords to expand on their very thoughtful points around this complex issue.

Just to go to reframe it and reminding everyone that the first UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act came in 1990. And I think we need to all need to reflect on just how long that is. Ago set out to regulate assisted reproduction and human embryo research, the act established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, as we've heard from Baroness Deech, and I shall refer to that as the HFEA, and this was the first dedicated regulator of fertility treatment and embryo research anywhere in the world.

It is quite extraordinary that it is still does have so many robust features that are applied to this day. The Hfea ensures that fertility clinics operate to high standards and that sensitive and complex treatments are carried out both safely and ethically. They remain an important and effective regulator. Helping to ensure that treatment and research are conducted responsibly with positive outcome for patients. This is particularly important as fertility treatments continue to help people in the UK to have children, and we must not forget this.

With almost 2000 babies born from IVF in 2023 accounting for 1 in 32 UK births. Having treatment in a UK licensed fertility clinic continues to be very safe. In 2020, 24 to 25 out of more than 100 000 cycles of fertility treatment, storage or donations. Incidents occurred in less than 1% of cycles. Just picking up on the issue that I think that was raised by so many of noble Lords today, including Baroness Deech Baroness Pidgeon, Baroness Gerada Earl of Effingham.

In terms of the the issue of postcode lottery, the National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence, guidelines for Fertility Problems, Assessment and treatment was published on the 31st of March 2026, and this guidance informs how Icbs should commission fertility services within their local populations. However, the government does recognise that access to NHS funded fertility services is variable in England and is looking into achievable ambitions to improve access to fertility services. I think this is a really important element in terms of the the the nature of commissioning that we have in England with regard to ICC BFS.

However, the government recognises that the success of the legislative framework does not mean that it is fully adequate for the modern day, which I think is framed. So many of the comments today. The fertility sector has evolved significantly since 1990, when the first act was introduced, and Baroness Deech was quite right to highlight the challenging issues. And of course, although it was updated in 2008, that is still a significant amount of time away. Scientific advancements changed in societal attitudes, the growth of a largely privately funded treatment sector have transformed both demand and delivery.

For such a service, the HFEA itself has concluded that whilst much of the original framework remains fit for purpose, targeted reform is now required. In 2023, the Hfea published the detailed set of recommendations to update the original act, identifying, as we've heard, four key areas in which reform is required, including patient protection and safety, which we've heard so clearly today. Consent, donor anonymity, scientific developments within this, the Hfea set out their views to strengthen regulatory powers to protect patients, simplify consent and ensure the system can accommodate scientific innovation.

As so clearly raised by both Baroness Owen and the Earl of Effingham, these issues do not undermine the foundations of the existing system. Rather, they highlight an opportunity to update and future proof the framework. The Hfea has highlighted the need for the regulatory framework to reflect changes in which, in the way patients access information and treatment decisions. Since 1990, the growth of online platforms and social media has fundamentally reshaped the fertility landscape, influencing how patients engage with clinics, access information and make decisions about treatment.

and make decisions about treatment. If I can add in terms of the the very thoughtful contributions around surrogacy, can I just say that the government does recognise the significance and importance of this issue and welcome the Law Commission's comprehensive report published in 2023. However, given the limited parliamentary time available and competing legislative priorities, we are not currently able to bring forward the reform immediately. But we will publish a formal response as soon as capacity allows, and we will keep this issue under review.

With regard to Lord Farmer and around setting financial penalties, this would also need to be considered as part of the broader update in regulatory powers and the other absolutely critical area covered by so many noble Lords, including Baroness Gerada, the Bishop of Chelmsford, Baroness Deech, Lord Winston and more is the whole issue of consent. The government recognises concern raised by by noble Lords regarding the complexity of of consent arrangements, including withdrawal of consent and ensuring patients fully understand the legal implications and will consider these.

We will consider all of these issues as part of any wider reform. My Lords, I'm very grateful to my noble friend Lady Nargund, for her informed contribution to this debate. She is right to highlight both the success and continuing importance of the regulatory framework and that framework, together with the work of the HFEA, has delivered tangible improvements in patient outcomes, including significant reductions in multiple birth rates and greater transparency through the publication of clinic performance data.

The government are clear that patients must be at the centre of the system. Fertility treatment can be physically and emotionally demanding, and we expect providers to meet the highest standards of care, safety and ethical practice. We recognise the argument that the legislation should be should more explicitly reflect the safety and protection of those undergoing treatment, and this is being carefully considered as part of the wider discussions on potential reform. We acknowledge concerns about the limits of the current enforcement regime to drive improvement, and that better use of data has the potential to strengthen oversight and support joined up care.

My Lords, I can assure the House that all of these issues are receiving careful and ongoing consideration. Any reforms must strike the right balance, maintaining public trust and patient safety while enabling responsible scientific progress. Just. To. Go on to talk about again, to emphasise the the fact that I know will be disappointing to noble Lords, but the legislative programme for this parliamentary session is very full due to the limited time available to to undertake legislative reform and the priorities the government has set out in the King's Speech, we are not able to pursue immediate legislative reform of the act.

In the current session, however, the government is considering potential legislative options and, if parliamentary time allows, will ensure any future reforms, support patient safety, reflect societal change and maintain the UK's position as a global leader in fertility regulation. I can tell that Baroness Owen is perhaps not as impressed as she might be, but. But I'm sure she was expecting my comments nonetheless. Just. Just if I can comment on the possibility of setting up a select committee raised by noble Lady Baroness Deech, of course we will consider all of the.

The different options and indeed one of these options could be setting up the relevant committee. As she outlined. And just picking up again, recognising the need to update the act that the. And around the significant changes in fertility and scientific innovation that we've witnessed picking up on the on the right, Reverend prelate, Bishop of Chelmsford comments, I'm sure she will appreciate that any reform must be approached in a considered and balanced way, given the ethical sensitivity and complexity of this area.

In terms of the issues raised around the lack of clarity over the fate of embryos, and for those families who very sadly could not continue the treatments. Any future reform would include a review of issues relating to digital clinics and how we might move forward to improve the regulatory regime in the digital area in terms of inequity and commercial exploitation in this sector, raised particularly by my noble friend Lord Winston, it is right to highlight the pace of change in the fertility sector.

And whilst we acknowledge that the legal framework has provided strong safeguards, we we do recognise the growing pressures from the expanding and increasingly complex private market. The government is clear that patient safety and fairness must remain paramount and supports the Hfea in maintaining robust regulation of clinics. However, we also recognise concerns about affordability, access and the risk of inequity. Whilst the UK continues to have a strong established regulatory regime, we are not complacent and will continue to determine next steps to ensure it reflects developments in both technology and the market.

So going back to the framework, the task before us is to build on on the framework to retain the strengths of the existing legislation, whilst reinforcing the capability of the Hfea and ensuring that the law keeps pace with science, society and patient expectations. And we look to ensure that the the UK continues to lead in the responsible regulation of fertility treatment. My noble friend Lord Winston raised important issues about egg freezing. Elective egg freezing, as we are aware, is not a service provided by the National Health Service.

The Hfea publishes advice about egg freezing on its website, including information about the process, the risks, the success and the data on this. Those who freeze their eggs do so within a tightly regulated system with strict rules set out in law and in HFEA code of practice, the HEA expects clinics to follow consumer law and advertising guidance for the UK fertility clinics produced by the CMA and the A s a, while egg freezing is becoming a popular choice, as I think we've heard very clearly today, it is not an insurance policy that can guarantee a baby in the future.

Fertility clinics have a responsibility to ensure anyone using fertility services understands the risks and the long term impact of any treatment decisions that they make. I am pleased to say that my noble friend, Lady Merryn, listened very carefully to the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Winston during the King's Speech, and as she wasn't winding on that particular debate, she undertook to. To write to him, sparing the noble Lord Lord Hendy from attempting to answer his questions.

In the summing up, I'm pleased to say that she has since written to him to address his concerns and. And will, I have no doubt, engage with him on further concerns that he's raised. The noble Lady, Baroness. Raised particular concerns about Apricity Apricity. Yes, and I think all of us will have heard about those those particular cases with extreme concern and sensitivity for for those people who went through such a distressing experience.

And of course, what we know is that the closure did did not fall under the Hfea regulatory remit as a digital service only. And of course, affected patients were advised to complain through trading standards in terms of the service that was offered. But I think those cases such as this will be very much at the forefront in the considerations of the the work we need to do going forward. I've listened with enormous interest to the noble Lady Baroness Boycott on on several occasions about the impact of chemicals in our system.

I haven't got the ability to respond to her fully on this point, but I think it is an issue and obviously raised by my noble friend Lord Winston as well. That is is is generating a huge amount of concern. And I will, I reassure her that I will write to colleagues in Defra, perhaps, and ask them to. Pass on the comments and we'll send a copy of her. The words that she said today to move it on.

Can I say I have not actually, I don't think debated with the Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson before and I was very interested to hear her comments. Obviously based on a lot of experience on the policy end of the spectrum. And I look forward to, I'm sure, her further contributions on this point. So can I thank again, everyone for taking part in this important debate with this. The challenges are very well recognised, and we look forward to moving forward to address those challenges in the way that so many couples, families and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individuals can benefit in the future. Thank you ladies. It's done. I wonder if you could just be kind enough to answer one question for me. The figures that I've presented me. The figures that I've presented were the embryo freezing show that of the there were 909 births, some of them which miscarried. However, of them which miscarried. However, it's clear that. Or at least 42,000 treatments with embryos to treatments with embryos to different women. So in that period of time, that's a massive, massive disappointment for women who are hoping to preserve their fertility.

And even that is clearly an underestimate. Can I just repeat my question to Baroness Merrill, and perhaps you'll be kind enough that she will write to me, explaining to me why the Hfea no longer keep these figures in the way they used to, because it's really important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to find out what's happening. I'm absolutely delighted to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm absolutely delighted to be able to say that. I will pass his comments on to Baroness Merron, and as I said in my comments, that she as I said in my comments, that she will follow up on on further comments that she's made today. I comments that she's made today. I think I was really struck by the the statistics that I looked at and that the my noble friend has raised in the debate today. And of course, in this day and age, making sure that we have up to date data to analyse and we have the tools to do it, and we should make sure that everyone involved makes full use of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that opportunity. My Lords, this debate has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this debate has consisted of highs and lows. The highs, of course, are. Isn't it highs, of course, are. Isn't it wonderful that the House of Lords has so many world experts on infertility ready to speak today infertility ready to speak today and contribute their knowledge? That's what we are all about. The
13:40
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
That's what we are all about. The lows I'm coming to. I can only pick out a few comments in the. In the limited time left, the noble Lord Lord Winston quite rightly pointed out that there are underlying causes of infertility. But time is of the essence when women are in their 30s or late 30s, there isn't time to queue for medical investigations that could take years, and the practice of IVF, including freezing eggs, has brought happiness to so many and should not be overlooked.

This is an area where there are great disappointments, but there are also great happinesses and that we shouldn't overlook that. I was invited all over the world to speak about the virtues of regulation, and in particular in the United States, regarded as a wild west of this area, where things go terribly wrong because, as you would expect, autonomy and no interference is the theme there, leading many women to fall into severe traps and malpractice. So from my own limited global experience, the HFEA and the model of regulation was widely admired and indeed copied.

And when they cut me open, when I'm gone, they will find Dolly, the sheep carved on my heart. Because under my watch, the Scots actually made this terrific breakthrough, which has led to the use of stem cells. And because the hfea was supervising that and being cautious, we've been able to advance with that particular treatment and research. And that is something we should be very proud of indeed, to the right, Reverend prelate, how wonderful it is that a bishop in our house should have had that experience.

I was privileged to work with two outstanding bishops at the HFEA, Bishop Richard Holloway, who, I'm glad to say, still with us a man of great heart and compassion, and, of course, the much missed, sorely missed, Richard Harris was able to contribute nobody better than than that, and how much we miss his voice in all areas of life. And on the issue of plastic plastics, all I can say is this is certainly worth looking at. I've had my own argument with Optrex.

I'm sure you all know Optrex and those glass bottles now replaced by plastics. And I wrote to them and said, why should I introduce plastics into my eyes? But of course got no reply, even though many other people objected as well. To the noble Ladies, Baroness Shawcross and. The others who mentioned surrogacy, certainly Baroness Pidgeon, there are great reserves about surrogacy the whole practice, and I think we must take this very cautiously, though of course it has brought joy to some people.

Turning to the Minister's response, it is, of course, disappointing. I can see that she, and no doubt the staff have taken all this into account. But time is of the essence. As I've said before, I call once more on the government to get going. Set up a select committee, produce a draft bill, which is what happened last time the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was revised. It takes time, but if you don't start it now, we will never get around to it.

And the government needs to draw on the expertise which was so evident in this House today. Maybe in future years we will not have such a wealth of expertise. Now is the time to get going. It might well take some years, but the government really needs to set up that select committee and do the legislative scrutiny right now. And let me end on a note of joy, because there hasn't been that much to serve on the HFEA was a joy and privilege of my life.

People of my generation thought we were very clever in not conceding. That was the big issue. It never crossed my mind that there were fertility issues, and I learned that there were, and how painful they were, and to see the joy of people who managed to have families like the right reverend Prelate. Like others I could mention, thanks to the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Winston and others, was really very special. And we are told that we live in a country where there are not enough babies.

So the Hfea is helping people to produce those much wanted babies, and I wish it well. It was a great privilege to serve, and at the time there were ethical considerations. As members. We had a bishop, a rabbi and an actress, and you couldn't have a broader spread of input than that. And it all worked very well with great results. So I end by begging to move this motion again. I'm pleading with the Minister to get on with legislative reform for the sake of our health, our growth in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families, and the joy of would be parents. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Question for short debate. have it. Question for short debate. The UK's declining birth rates in an ageing population. Baroness Nargund.
13:46
Baroness Nargund Portrait Baroness Nargund (Labour)
-
-
Second. >> Second. >> My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, I'm grateful for the opportunity to debate this very important topic in your Lordships House. Demography is destiny is an old saying that has never felt more urgent. The UK faces a demographic shift that threatens an unfolding economic crisis. This issue has concerned me for nearly two decades. In 2009, I published a peer reviewed paper, which was described as a landmark paper on this topic, and since then, I have continued to debate and address this subject nationally and internationally.

I'm particularly pleased that today's debate benefits from the contribution of so many learned noble Lords. Today, I will address the impact of ageing, our ageing population, falling fertility rates, the economic barriers preventing family formation and why equal access to fertility treatment and gender equality need to be central to our long term growth. Deaths are now projected to outnumber births in the UK every single year. By 2034, pensioners will outnumber children by 3 million since 2010, UK fertility rates have fallen by 25%, the steepest decline in the G7.

My Lords, these are not just social statistics, they are fiscal ones. PwC estimates that population ageing could reduce UK GDP by 429 billion by the year 2100, while public health funding is forecast to nearly double as a share of our economy by 2074. We face a compounding crisis, rising health care and pension costs alongside a shrinking workforce. Nowhere is this more visible than in our National Health Service. When it was founded in 1948, only 11% of our population was over the age of 65.

Today, it is nearly 20% the number of over 85. The highest users of our health care has doubled in two decades. At the same time, 2 million people over 65 have unmet care needs, while over 150,000 social care posts. It awakened every single day. These pressures extend across the workforce economic activity inactivity rates rise from 17.4% at the age of 50 to nearly 70% by the age of 66. By state pension age, more than two thirds of people have left work.

We are losing experienced workers precisely when we can least afford to. Pension and retirement reforms can help. To address this. Now I turn to declining birth rates. My Lords, the UK fertility rate fell to 1.39 in 2025, far below the 2.1 needed to sustain our population. The consequences are reshaping our communities. Maternity units are closing, so our primary schools across our country. That is because simply there are fewer children. Declining birth rates, my Lords, is a global phenomenon.

Some of it reflects a cultural change, but many people still want children and want more children, but cannot afford to have them. That gap between aspiration and reality, known as fertility gap, is a policy failure. We do not want to create economic conditions that make parenthood unaffordable or fail to provide fair access to fertility treatment, and we do not want to create political infertility. As the UK fertility expert on the panel for the Economist Impact Report, Fertility Policy Toolkit for Europe, I can say the evidence is clear child friendly policies pay for themselves.

No conversation by Lords is complete about declining birth rates without addressing assisted reproduction. Yet we still have a postcode lottery for IVF provision, with nearly 70% of Icbs funding only one cycle of treatment. I welcome our government's neighbourhood health hubs as an opportunity to improve early diagnosis of reproductive conditions, to facilitate faster treatments of infertility. I have argued repeatedly that an introduction of a national tariff and a price cap for IVF would increase access within the existing budget research.

Peer reviewed research has shown that public funding for IVF delivers an eight fold return on investment to our Treasury, taking into account the lifetime economic value of a child born in the United Kingdom. Furthermore,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It promotes creation of diverse and inclusive families by helping single women and same sex couples. single women and same sex couples. Can I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister, whether equal and fair access to fertility treatment fair access to fertility treatment should be recognised as an economic. We cannot speak about demographic decline while leaving families to navigate parenthood alone. Raising navigate parenthood alone. Raising a child to the age of 18 now costs around £260,000 for a couple, and £290,000 for a single parent.

Nearly 40% cite the cost of raising children as a reason for delaying having family. People call it a second mortgage. The UK has the fourth most expensive childcare in the world, and only 11% of employers offer it. I welcome the government's measures in measure two about renters, right, as well as social housing bill, because they not only matter socially but economically. Statutory paternity leave remains among the lowest in Europe. And I also welcome our government's review on parental leave.

And I urge the government to extend paternity leave and pay so that it's viable for all families. Immigration has an important role to play, but immigration alone cannot rebalance these demographic imbalances. Finally, there is also a digital challenge. Recent research cited in the Financial Times found that the first areas in the UK to receive 4G also saw birth rates fall earliest and fastest. Young people are socialising less and forming fewer long term relationships. If we are serious about reversing demographic decline, we must also examine the impact of technology on connection, relationships and family formations.

My Lords, there is no single solution to this challenge, but the thread connecting all of it is economic growth. At the heart of any solution must be family friendly policies that promote gender parity, support work and parenthood, and create financial security. These are not cost to the exchequer, they are investment in our future prosperity. This requires coordinated cross-governmental action. Will my noble friend the Minister, therefore consider the appointment of a dedicated government lead to address this issue? My Lords, demography is destiny need not become our nation's fate.

But it's only if we act now. I look forward to my noble friend, the minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reply. Well done. Thank you. My Lords. I declare an interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I declare an interest as chief executive of the National Academies Trust. And I'm also a non-executive director at Queen non-executive director at Queen Victoria Hospital NHS trust. I want to thank my noble friend Baroness Nargund for securing this vital debate, and to say what a pleasure it is to listen to her expertise on it is to listen to her expertise on this topic. As a pioneering fertility specialist serving the NHS for more than three decades, my noble friend has done more than most people, I think, to raise the cause of reproductive health and to
13:55
Lord Hobby Portrait Lord Hobby (Non-affiliated)
-
-
bring these questions to a wider audience for my contribution. I audience for my contribution. I want to connect this topic to Alan Milburn's interim report on young Milburn's interim report on young people and work. We heard a little about that this morning with the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott question, and the two topics I think are tightly linked. The think are tightly linked. The effects of the demographic transition are at the heart of matter of quite simple ratio. There are fewer working age people supporting a larger population that relies on public services and benefits.

My noble friend has already quoted the key statistics on this, so I don't need to repeat them. But I am struck by that particularly gloomy one that we are projecting that births will continue to sorry. Deaths will continue to outnumber births for the foreseeable future. So we must debate measures to lift fertility, to support families, and to reduce the cost of raising children. And the government has a promising suite of measures in place for this. But whatever we do now, that shift in age structure that we have spoken about is already baked in for decades, short of dramatically increasing migration, which seems politically challenging.

There is nothing that we can do to change the underlying demographic facts in the medium term. And I guess it's a strange way of putting it, but it takes 18 years to make a new worker. The international evidence so far seems to suggest that we can slow, but not reverse the decline in fertility. What we can change is how many of our working age population are actually working, and how much they produce when they do work. So our immediate response belongs in the realm of product productivity and participation on productivity.

The UK's track record since the financial crisis offers little grounds for optimism. But we must keep trying. Which leaves participation. And here Milburn's report gives us fresh cause for worry. Not only will we have fewer young people, fewer of those that we do have are entering work. Over 1,000,016 to 24 year olds are now not in education, employment or training, and more are economically inactive than are unemployed, often because of poor physical and mental health. So this is a double blow.

These young people are not working, and many of them will need to lean on the same services that are already stretched by the ageing population. England is projected to need around 470,000 more social care workers by 2014, according to the Darzi report, even as the working age population to fill those roles shrinks. So we have fewer workers and greater need, and both terms of that ratio are moving against us. So, my Lords youth, worklessness is a tragedy on its own terms.

It is a waste of potential and a source of future division and alienation. If the first rungs of the ladder are being chopped away, we should not be surprised that fewer people are deciding to climb that ladder. But I think this topic shows that the combination of growing worklessness and an ageing population is a threat to all of our futures. The Work and Pensions Secretary, who commissioned Milburn's review, called it a cause of our times, connected to the demographic challenge before us.

We could come to see it as the defining cause of our time. So I have two questions to put to my noble friend the Minister. Will he assure us that the government will respond to the recommendations in the second phase of the report, with the urgency and the vigour that they demand, as was also echoed by my noble friend Lord Blunkett earlier. And finally, and I repeat here, Baroness Nargund comment, given all of these threads coming together, is it time for a wide, coherent, cross-governmental

**** Possible New Speaker ****

demographic strategy? Thank you. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you to my noble friend Baroness Nargund. For for raising Baroness Nargund. For for raising this important issue. A good illustration of the expertise that's brought before this House, and I recognise the important work that she has done in this area, that she has done in this area, looking at the barriers to parenthood and the need for family friendly policies. And we do need to prioritise long term thinking.
14:00
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
But what I want to highlight is that falling Fertility is also a that falling Fertility is also a story about women's choices. There's a certain symmetry to this debate. The previous debate was debate. The previous debate was about women who want to have children, and what we can do to children, and what we can do to help them, but it's also a choice not to have children. Now, it's not not to have children. Now, it's not just a UK issue. Of course.

We know that the global fertility rate has roughly halved since the 1960s, and the standard explanations focus on housing costs, debt, technology and the general pressures of modern life. These things do exist and they are influential, but the evidence is that they are not necessarily the primary explanation. The other explanation is that women now have far greater control over their reproductive lives, and they are exercising it. Now, I do not have the presumption to speak on behalf of women.

I simply read the the consistent evidence on the pattern of falling fertility, fertility decline is not concentrated among women facing the greatest economic pressure. If cost were a main driver, you would expect the sharpest falls among the least well off. This is not what we see. What does cut across all groups is access to contraception. And equally important, the freedom to use it. The timing tracked closely, the timing of the decline in fertility tracks closely with the expansion of women's reproductive autonomy, not with any particular economic shock.

Education reinforces this. Better educated women exercise more choice between how many children they want, when to have them, and how many they actually have. Now, it's not that education makes women want to have fewer children, but it is associated with more effective control over that decision. When teenage birth rates fall decade after decade across every country as they have, that it is not young women being unable to afford children. It is a decline in unintended pregnancies.

This must be progress, not failure. The conclusion is that much of this decline in fertility simply reflects what women, given genuine choice, actually want, and to that extent, it should be welcomed and not seen necessarily as a problem to be solved. I just want them. Time remained to have two further falls that bear on this issue. First, the last hundred years demonstrate that human society can deal with massive economic and demographic change. I often ponder what Lloyd George, when he introduced his state pension, would have thought about the possibility of having a a much better state pension.

Currently, when circumstances have massively on the sort of criteria that we're talking about now have made it more difficult. But of course, we've overcome them over time. I think it's important that we understand that while people often say time is a healer, it's also an enabler. It enables us to confront these changes. Finally, there must come a time now or in the future when we say enough is enough growth, whether economic or in the population, is not good in itself.

It's what you do with what this world provides that really counts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as we've heard, declining birth rates carry both profound economic and social consequences. The story of human origins in the book of Genesis origins in the book of Genesis begins with a God given mandate to populate the earth and supports the basic goodness of family life. The basic goodness of family life. The Christian tradition has consistently affirmed the value of children. The baptism liturgy children. The baptism liturgy declares the children are a blessing and a gift from God.

That conviction remains important not only for people of faith, but for society as a whole. Children represent continuity, connecting us with the generations that have gone before us and giving hope for the
14:05
Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford (Bishops)
-
-
future. They're a gift to the whole community, not only to their parents and others who may raise parents and others who may raise them. It's important, however, to understand the complex factors understand the complex factors behind declining birth rates, which include women's choice. As mentioned by the Nobel Lord Davies mentioned by the Nobel Lord Davies of Brixton, but also fearfulness about the future difficulties in combining career and family and financial pressures, the expense of housing, student loan repayments and the rising cost of living all contribute to delaying family formation.

Couples now marry later, start a family later and often have fewer children than hoped for. Not least because of because by the time financial circumstances may seem more favourable, biology might well be less cooperative. As I've said before in this chamber, we are witnessing the unravelling of an unwritten social contract that if you obtain a decent education and work hard, you should be able to save for a deposit, buy a home, start a family and provide stability for your children until they can do likewise.

For many young adults today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. It takes many years to save for a deposit, and then two stable salaries are typically needed to pay the mortgage, with an average house now costing 7.6 times an average salary, rising to 10.6 in London. High high house prices also limit the ability of younger generations to build housing, wealth and financial security, contributing to the growing crisis in intergenerational equity. Whilst there are limits to what the state can and should do, there is much within government's power to address some of the barriers that I've described, and to legislate in such a way that supports families of varying shapes and sizes, as outlined so clearly by the noble Baroness Nargund in her opening speech.

I'm heartened by the government's commitment to family hubs. At their best, they can provide valuable help and support for all parents and families. However, they remain something of a postcode lottery. If they're to make a difference across our communities, they should be accessible and attractive to all families, not only those experiencing crisis. And they should be embedded with a wider ecosystem of support involving voluntary organisations, community and faith groups. Secondly, the government's family tests should be strengthened. At present, it's too weak, inconsistently applied and insufficient to ensure that the effects of policy on family relationships are properly considered across government.

I therefore urge the DWP to review the family test, strengthen its application and make it a statutory requirement so that the well-being of families is embedded more firmly across government decisions. Decision making. This would signal to prospective parents that their choice to have children will be supported by the state. Can I therefore ask the Minister whether any steps have been taken to review the family test, considering concerns about declining birth rates? My Lords, demographic change presents us with serious challenges, but it also invites us to reflect on the kind of society that we wish to build.

If we value families, if we welcome children as a blessing and as a source of hope, and if we want future generations to flourish, then we must ensure that those who wish to marry, establish a home and raise children are not prevented from doing so by barriers that could be avoided.
14:09
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
My thanks to my noble friend for opening this debate. To my Lords. opening this debate. To my Lords. It seems ironic that some of the very same politicians who frame the falling birthrate as a crisis have also pledged to bring back the two child benefit cap. Meanwhile, the far right peddles racist conspiracy theories about white European populations being replaced and proclaims that having babies is a woman's patriotic duty. In contrast, my starting point is women's choice.

Most of us do not want a Handmaid's Tale style future, with the state pressurising women into motherhood. Instead, we should celebrate how better education and access to contraception and abortion services has helped women take more control over reproductive choices in a free society. It is not for government to dictate whether we have children or how many. But government policies can either support citizens choices or push them beyond reach. Ordinary people have suffered years of austerity and pressure on wages, and were told that they had no right to expect job security, let alone a secure home.

I pay tribute to this government's Employment Rights Act and Renters Rights Act, which guarantee a more stable life, including for those who want to start a family. Policies that recognise that families come in all shapes and sizes are important to. A quarter of families are headed by a single parent, overwhelmingly mothers. I was one of them. So action on equal pay and childcare really counts. The paid parental leave system, which this government has inherited is amongst the worst in Europe.

That makes it harder for new mothers to stay in the workforce or relegates them to second class status, holding back economic growth. New fathers and other parents get a raw deal, too. While many employers top up statutory paternity pay, blue collar workers are much more likely to rely on the statutory rate, and self-employed dads get nothing at all. The UK's parental leave system is still rooted in the 1950s idea of the sole male breadwinner and emotionally detached fatherhood, a model of masculinity that only the so-called populist right still aspires to.

All the evidence is that women and men want to share parenthood more equally, and giving new babies more time with their parents is one of the best forms of early years investment. Change is urgent. Similarly, living longer lives should be seen as a measure of human progress. It only becomes a crisis if we fail to put in place policies necessary to support a happy old age, not least tackling the UK's stark class inequality in healthy life expectancy. The last thing we need is divisive proposals.

Proposals that stoke intergenerational wars. Which brings me to the centre for Social Justice. Recent report Baby bust. It argues too many retirees believe that they have paid for their pension rather than understanding it is funded by current taxpayers. The centre could have usefully added that this generation of taxpayers has an interest in protecting a decent state pension, because one day they will claim it too. The state pension is in fact a prime example of intergenerational solidarity.

To read the report, you might also think the UK state pension provision is generous. It is not. UK spending on state pensions as a percentage of GDP is well below the OECD average. Of course, we must prioritise economic growth to support an ageing society. Many argue that technology is the answer, and it's been calculated that the introduction of AI alone will deliver multi-billion dollar productivity gains. I would welcome the Minister's views on ways to ensure that those gains are shared fairly, and how Big Tech can pay its fair share towards the decent public goods and services that are ageing.

Population has earned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support to the noble Lady, Baroness Nargund and colleague that she is for having secured this debate, and to the noble Lady Baroness O'Grady for having introduced the business of introduced the business of intergenerational solidarity, because I want to concentrate on the other end, not birth, but on the other end, not birth, but on this older population, because they actually have a civic contribution
14:14
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
actually have a civic contribution through volunteers and through their economic impact. The total economic impact of volunteers is to save the country. Around £27.4 billion per annum. And if we look at those over the age of 85 in employment, they bring in 6 to £8 billion in income tax revenue annually and 1.7 million people earn around half that their younger earners gain in employment. So they're working, they're earning less, but they're bringing in tax. And they're certainly not being a burden on the state.

But there are families where the child cannot be looked after in the conventional way. And I want for a moment to focus on kinship in the census in 2021. Most children living in kinship care. That's 60% lived with at least one grandparent. And the 2025 survey showed that nearly half of the respondents were aged over 60, and more than 1 in 8 were aged over 70. Seven out of ten kinship carers are grandparents to at least one child in their care.

They are taking a huge burden off the state in many ways, yet they suffer significant practical and financial problems, often using their own savings to look after these children. They've found that if they go for a special guardianship order, then they jeopardise their pension going into the future. So for some, it's better financially to remain as kinship foster carers because they get a foster care allowance. But that doesn't provide as much stability for the child themselves.

So I hope the issue of kinship care will be looked at seriously by the government, because we could improve it. And that contribution is enormous. If we look at volunteers for a moment too. And I declare I'm president of attend that for attend alone. We have 400 groups across the country working in hospitals. They're led by officers who usually between 70 and 90 years of age. They work many hours voluntarily. They are about 2000 people actively supporting their community by belonging to one of these groups.

But for each of them, there are another ten other people who are ad hoc volunteers coming in to provide support across their community. Actually through attend alone. We have one in. We have about 20 young people every year who are gaining work experience as volunteers in order to strengthen their CV's in order to move forward later. So that volunteer contribution is essential. I'd also just point out, as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, that falls. Avoidance is absolutely essential.

If we avoid falls in older people and we connect them with other people through often through volunteering, we avoid loneliness. We avoid the problems of people saying they feel that they're a burden. When they feel they're a burden, they avoid seeking health help early. They present with later problems. And one of the big problems in this older group is hidden alcohol abuse. These are all aspects that we must address if we're going to address the demographic challenges we face in.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. Can I first congratulate my noble friend Baroness Nargund for securing this debate? And can I just say how busy she seems to have been today? And I have this strange feeling that she's only just getting started in your Lordships' House. So let's see what happens House. So let's see what happens next. This this debate is a kind of veritable banquet of related policy issues, and I intend to address those which are to do with the ageing demographic.

And I need to
14:18
Baroness Thornton Portrait Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
-
declare an interest as the chair elect of the Social Care Institute for excellence, founded by your for excellence, founded by your Lordships House around 2003, I. For distinguished members of your distinguished members of your Lordships' House in this chairing this organisation, I am also a non-executive director of Whittington Health, where I am actually the maternity lead. But I am going to talk about the am going to talk about the demographic impact of of the of our ageing population. And I think it's actually quite important to say as a as other noble Lords have said, is that actually the fact that we have a population of so many people living longer is a matter for rejoicing.

It is not actually a matter for creative issues, but it is something for which I think we should all be grateful. And it is indeed the case that we will have 14.2 million of us who are older by 2034, and 9.1 million of those will indeed have serious illness. So I am very pleased that the NHS ten year plan addresses the UK's ageing population by shifting the health services focus from reactive hospital treatments to proactive integrated care in local communities, tackles the unsustainable rise in demand for major illness by promoting preventative care, better digital access and stronger social care has various elements.

Neighbourhood health services Decentralising care to expanding multidisciplinary teams in our local communities. Digital integration enhancing the NHS app to empower patients to manage their own care. And I really appreciate that. That raises issues of digital exclusion, but those are issues that I think we need to tackle. And we shouldn't underestimate the fact that those of us who are older are actually perfectly digitally capable, given the chance to be. So, although I have to say, the phone on my desk has stopped working again.

But I will solve that problem, I promise. Preventative health care shifting from reactive to predictive care by leveraging genomics and health risk scores to intervene earlier, and social care alignment and social care alignment that I want to spend my last couple of minutes talking about. Because the plan emphasises the urgent need to accelerate social care reform, to ensure smooth hospital discharges and, more importantly, sustain support at home. So shifting care closer to home and building a neighbourhood health service.

My Lords, I do not think that is achievable unless we can really place social care on an equal footing with health care. Social Care's role is vital in effectively delivering neighbourhood health and early support. So that is why the Casey Report is indeed very important. But can I ask my noble friend the Minister, if the interim report, which is expected this year, will address the necessary transition to equal status for social care in a in fast enough to be able to allow this delivery to happen? And will the plan also fulfil the commitment to incorporating lived experience in the design of neighbourhood health care development? So will voluntary sector volunteers, social enterprises, community organisations also be involved in the delivery of the of the neighbourhood health care.

We need to develop to build. That will ensure, if you like, a soft landing for the future. Yes, I Lord Sahota thank the noble Baroness Water for her choice of subject. What a neatly symmetrical pairing it was. I wish I could have been here for the earlier debate. I'm one of the ageing or, I admit, aged. The generation, a very lucky generation, post-World war Two baby boomer who never considered not having a job, leaving university with a huge debt,
14:23
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
having to go on working longer than I'd want if I could, not having I'd want if I could, not having stable housing factors, all relevant to choices today. We're relevant to choices today. We're also a generation to follow Baroness Thornton acutely aware of Baroness Thornton acutely aware of the importance of social care. I tend to think in terms of the tend to think in terms of the classic family of parents and 2.4 children, as it was the replacement rate per woman, I understand would be 2.1, but the total fertility rate fell last year to less than 1.4.

So many aspects to this issue. I stumbled over a couple of articles recently, and I've just picked up on a couple in the US. People in red states seem to be having more children than those in blue. I'm not advocating following Elon Musk, but certainly there is a political hue, and I think this echoes Baroness O'Grady. Viktor Orban said before his non-election we need Hungarian children. Announcing a lifelong exemption from income tax for women with four or more.

The more you read about this, the less men seem to feature in the comments, and there are lots of historical references. One might make factors I hadn't anticipate, which I got from an article in the Ft, which cites sources from a range of academic research. One American University published a paper looking at birth rates through the lens of the rollout of 4G mobile networks in the US and the UK. I think this takes on the point that Baroness Nargund make made the number of births fell first and fastest in areas that received high speed mobile connectivity.

The earliest researchers argue that smartphones reduce young people's in-person socialising. Another academic commented that to meet the person you're going to marry should have said partner, but said marry requires filtering through a lot of people. If you spend lots of time socialising with your peers in the real world, you're standards are anchored in the real world. If you spend. Spend your time on Instagram. I confess I don't know whether that's an out of date reference. Your standards are anchored to an artificial sense of what is normal, but there is something which is is less startling to me.

The connection with immigration. To me, it's obvious that the UK's need for people should not be detached from people's wish or need to be in the UK or indeed the the the the converse, as I say, is the UK's need of people. Reform says we need to cut immigration drastically and they go on to say at the same time, to fix a population crisis. We're trying to encourage British people already here to have kids. Well, there's a lot to analyse in that which I don't have time for.

But one of their leaders suggestions is that only British born families should have the two child benefit limit limit lifted. We already have the situation where some people are being. A lot of people are being looked after in care homes and hospitals by the very people who are demonised. The government and the media should be welcoming them and lead the way in doing so, because we are in danger of the penny dropping far too late. These words are not original.

I should credit John Harris, who wrote in The Guardian, about them pulling up the drawbridge as birth rates crash

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is the absolute definition of folly. Well done. Good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good. I'd like to congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Nargund for securing her first Q SD today and securing her first Q SD today and for her perceptive comments. After a lifetime devoted to reproductive medicine. And I thank all noble medicine. And I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, I was particularly struck by the right Reverend Bishop of Chelmsford when
14:27
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
Reverend Bishop of Chelmsford when she reminded us that children are a blessing and Lady Finley's emphasis on the elderly avoiding falls. I think that's a very good example of preventative health care. My Lords, the collapse in the birth rate is not a new issue, but it is becoming an increasingly urgent one. The number of babies born per woman fell to 1.39 in 2025, as we've heard, down from 1.9 in 2010 and well below the 2.1 needed to replace the existing population and the ONS projects that over the decade to 2034, there will be around 450 000 more deaths than births in the UK, and it's a trend replicated in other developed countries, with Japan and Korea worst affected.

I spent time in both countries and they are well aware of the problem. And indeed I remember addressing a large room of women working at the then Tesco operation in Korea, and at the end the male CEO emerged at the back to thank me profusely but inappropriately. He added that Korea would not be facing the difficulties it did if mothers there had taken a leaf out of my book and given birth to four boys, the UK is moving from a model in which population growth came from a combination of such births and some migration, to one in which future growth is expected to depend on migration.

And that is a profound shift, and I'm going to focus on three of the challenges now. With the steep fall in the birth rate, there will be fewer children entering our nurseries in our schools. This could mean smaller class sizes and improvement in teaching. But I fear that with pupil funding per head, it will mean that more schools have to close, forcing some very difficult choices on the authorities, especially in rural areas. But there should be cost savings, which, even if we prefer that they did not arise, should be banked.

The lower birth rate will also mean fewer people entering the labour market in years to come. Falling birth rates affect both the number of people who need public services and the number available to provide them, and that is critical in sectors such as health and social care, where pressures are already acute. As we've heard, this matters because our economy urgently needs sustained growth, yet demographic change is pushing us in the opposite direction towards greater demand for public services and a smaller working age population.

So the answer is that people must stay in work for longer. As many as many of us have done in Parliament, and that means raising the state pension age, except perhaps for those who've had particularly physically taxing jobs. As I suggested in my report for DWP on the subject in 2022. Another challenge is the cost of an ageing population to the public purse. So the OBR has warned that on our current trajectory, the long term pressure of ageing and related spending could push borrowing and debt to absurd levels.

But the markets won't let that happen. So we've got to develop a response. State pension spending is projected to rise from around 5% of GDP today to 7.7% by the early 2070s, and at the same time, an older population will mean rising demand for health and social care. The state is therefore being squeezed from both directions, higher spending on one side and a smaller tax base relative to the retired population on the other. And that is why declining birth rates are not simply a social trend or a private matter for families.

They are central to the fiscal sustainability of our country. So what can be done? I believe the matter should be addressed with real seriousness. This is not an undergraduate debate about the future of the country. It's the future. Government policies across the board will need adjustment. As we've heard, that means taxation, childcare, fertility treatment, social and welfare rules, technology and what we teach our children in our schools. So first, can the Minister set out whether the government has a cross-departmental strategy for responding to the UK's persistently low fertility, with a view to changing the situation over time? And second, what assessment has the government made of the long term fiscal consequences of the demographic shift, particularly for pensions, for health and social care? My Lords, this is a vital topic affecting our country's future into the distant future.

We need answers to this problem, I hope, and we need them quickly. I hope the outlines of a way forward will emerge from today's important debate.
14:32
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to thank Baroness Nargund for introducing this debate, Nargund for introducing this debate, which I think is very important to the long term future of the country, but also, I think, by the contributions that we've heard. But it's it's a very complicated issue, it's it's a very complicated issue, and it's not just an issue which is determined by one factor. There's a lot of factors that involve that are involved. And also, as the Baroness Neville-Rolfe has just said, that this is something that's happening globally as well, just on, on the on the global aspect of it all, you'll find that the the rate is declining in Japan, in Korea, but across Europe as well, and all over every other every other advanced country as well.

Declining birth rates and an ageing population represent one of the most significant challenges that we that we face. The trends will shape the future size and composition of the workforce, increase pressure on public services and have important implications for economic growth and the sustainability of the public finances, not just in this country, but in all countries that are affected. And I think Lord Davis pointed out, as I've said, but I think you've made it very clear that the issues that we're facing are very complicated from from low birth rates for the for the workforce, for the elderly, the cost of pensions, you know, even the impact of social media on trends and demography are important as well.

The pressures that reinforced the importance of maintaining a strong and productive economy, economic growth and rising productivity will be essential in ensuring that the United Kingdom can continue to fund high quality public services while supporting long term fiscal sustainability. Several noble Lords rightly highlighted the implication for the labour market. I just want to point out one statistic, which I find really interesting, that there are only two peacetime years out of the past 150 years, when the average annual employment rate has been higher than it was in 2025.

The UK employment rate is in the top half of OECD economies and is above the G7 average. What we're doing is including support those who wish to remain in or return to work, including parents, older workers and those currently economically inactive. The government also recognises the importance of lifelong learning and workforce flexibility in ensuring people contribute to the society throughout their lives. Noble Lords also spoke about wider pressure facing younger generations. Decisions about having children are deeply personal.

However, the government recognises the fact that factors such as housing affordability, childcare costs, job security and broader economic confidence can all shape those decisions. And that is why supporting families and improving economic opportunity remains important not only for individuals and households, but also for the long term resilience of the economy. And the debate also underlined that there is no single policy solution to demographic change. And I just want to spend the rest of my time to try and answer a lot of the questions that were, that were raised by noble Lords over the course of this, this short debate, and I'll try to answer them all.

And the ones that I don't get round to will obviously write to the the noble Lord in in question. Baroness Nargund asked. And also the right reverend Prelate asked about equal and fair access to fertility treatment should be recognised as an economic priority, and the question from the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate fairness to access is a priority for the government and recognise that access to NHS funded fertility services currently varies across. Across the England commissioning decisions are made by integrated care boards based on local clinical needs, informed by national guidance, and the government is committed to improving fair and equitable access to fertility services, recognising the significant emotional and health impacts of infertility on social care.

This is mentioned by Baroness Nargund again and Baroness Hamwee and and others and Baroness Thornton as well. A spending review in 2025 means that there will be an additional £4.6 billion of funding available for adult social care in 2020 829, compared to 2526, and this will enable an increase in the NHS minimum contribution to adult social care via the Better Care Fund, in line with the spending review settlement and £500 million to begin implementing the Fair Pay Agreement in 2020 829, Lord Hobby mentioned.

And so did Baroness Nargund and I think Baroness Neville-rolfe mentioned as well, which is about how importantly does the government take across take this. Is it going to have a cross-government approach to all of this through the through cross-departmental approach? And the government is committed to ensuring the right structures are in place for coordinating this response to the challenges posed by an ageing society. Boosting economic growth is central to this response, and the Prime Minister has recently announced a number of changes to the Cabinet committee structures, including establishing Growth and Living Standards Committee, which is the terms of reference to consider many of the issues that have been raised in in this debate.

From Lord Hobby. Again, we raised the issue of rising unemployment. The government isn't inherited a rate of youth unemployment, not not being in youth, people not being in employment, education or training. That was far too high at 12.6%. And the second quarter of 2024 in March, the government has announced £1 billion more to unlock 200,000 new jobs and apprenticeships for the next generation, as part of a new deal for young people. Also, the Lord Hobby also mentioned the Milburn review, which is going to be final.

Finally, final publication will be in the autumn of this year and we take very seriously the the issues that were raised in that report. And it's going to be something that I know that we will concentrate on once the final report as being issued sometime in in in September or October of this year. And it was. Lord Hobby again has mentioned the Milburn review, which we all agree, I think is very important going forward. Baroness Finlay mentioned commitments by the by the government to kinship care.

This is something that I'll. I'll pass on the comments to the due DWP and the relevant departments. But what I can say are the government is committed to tackling child poverty and improving outcomes for low income families. Scrapping the two child limit is just one way in which the government is tackling the root causes of child poverty, and the child poverty strategy was published in December last year. Baroness Thornton on on the issues that she raised around social care. For example, the autumn 2025 budget confirmed that millions in England will see the cost of their prescriptions frozen to 2627.

The budget also confirmed the NHS Neighbourhood Rebuild Programme will deliver 250 new neighbourhood health centres, and the government's ten year health plan is committed to shift care from hospitals to community by establishing a neighbourhood health service, which will bring care closer to home. And of course, the Casey review into all of this is very important. On housing raised the Baroness Nargund raised housing and affordability. The noble Lords highlighted the relationship between housing and declining birth rates, and the government recognised that economic security, including access to stable and affordable affordable housing, can influence long term family planning decisions and the amount of money that we put into social housing, I think, which has been announced in the budget, is significant.

I have got a minute to go. Yeah, do me best. The noble, the right reverend Prelate raised family hubs will will draw on what we know works from Surestart and the family hubs and start for life programme will provide essential support for parents and families, and the government is committed to providing funds for all local authorities to deliver. Best Start family hubs to to a total amount of £500 million. Baroness O'Grady. It's difficult to make meaningful comparisons between different countries where state pension schemes are concerned and the UK.

But the UK has one of the most generous approaches to uplifting pension globally, because no other country has the triple lock. Baroness Hamwee the UK's immigration system, as she mentioned, is geared towards supporting businesses and accessing high skilled overseas workers who boost the supply of skills and talent in the in in the UK. And despite that, one of the big issues that Baroness Neville-Rolfe mentioned was the pension pension situation. The government is legally required to review the state pension age every six years to ensure it is fair and sustainable.

We announced the launch of the third review of the state Pension age in July 2025 and alongside the the Pensions Commission. So I think it's fair to say that we're doing a lot, a lot in this regard. There's obviously more to do. It's a very complicated issue, but it's something that hopefully in the future will be able to come back to another debate in this chamber. It's something that's very, very important, very complicated, and there is no easy answers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It might be helpful if we take a moment for those who need The motion for debate, government policy in combating atrocity crimes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crimes against humanity and genocide. Lord Alton of Liverpool. May I thank all noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I thank all noble Lords participating in today's debate, along with the International Bar Association's Human Rights Association's Human Rights Institute, Protection Approaches and the coalition for Genocide Response, of which I'm a patron, Response, of which I'm a patron, doctor. Ewelina Ochab and the House of Lords Library for their invaluable background papers. invaluable background papers. Thanks also to the noble Lord Lord Collins of Highbury, who in 2021 from the opposition Front Bench was such an outstanding supporter of the genocide amendments to the trade Bill, about which I'll say a little more at the conclusion and a lot more.

On July the 17th, when my new bill, introduced earlier today on genocide determination, receives its Second Reading. It's particularly appetite, my Lords, that we're debating this topic today as we mark the 37th anniversary of the horrific Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing and indeed across China on June the 4th, 1989, graphically symbolised by the heroism of tank men who stood against the dictatorships might. And it was moving for me to attend. Earlier today, the unveiling of a new statue to Tank Man and to hear Kate Adie describe the horrors that
14:45
None Portrait Debate: Role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

unfolded in that square that day, where she was as a young journalist. where she was as a young journalist. My Lords, we recall the many brave advocates for democracy and human advocates for democracy and human rights incarcerated today by the Chinese Communist Party, including Chinese Communist Party, including Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai and all over the world. It's patently obvious that we need more of Tank Man that we need more of Tank Man steely resolve in demanding justice for victims and an end to impunity.

Let me, if I may, give the House some examples of our wholly inadequate, inconsistent and sometimes craven approach. In 2015, I raised the plight of the Yazidis and other minorities, which the House of Commons declared to be a genocide. In response, the Foreign Office said Parliament had no right to declare a genocide. In the case of Yazidis, seven years elapsed until a German court used universal jurisdiction to convict an Is insurgent of Yazidi genocide. Perversely, two years later in 2023, having blocked attempts to enable our own High Court to make a genocide declaration, the FCDO said the German court's findings would enable them to formally recognise a genocide.

In a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair, which looked at the Yazidi genocide committed by British members of ISIS. We highlighted the more than 400 returnees to the UK, not one of whom has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity. Is that, my Lord, still the case? And when are we going to act on the JCHR recommendation to extend universal jurisdiction? Contrast that decision to finally recognise the Yazidi genocide with the FCDO's almost simultaneous removal of its recognition of what the ICC had declared to be a genocide in Darfur.

This, despite speeches from Ministers still extant online, describing atrocities in Darfur as genocide. While the FCDO airbrushed Darfur out of its list of genocides, several organisations were ringing the alarm of an impending new genocide. And in April 2023, I chaired an inquiry by the All-Party parliamentary Group on Sudan and published a report entitled Genocide All Over Again in Darfur warning of systematic atrocities against non-Arab ethnic groups, urging immediate international intervention to prevent another genocide. While I was removing the previous determination inevitably affected our response to the events that were unfolding by 2026, a UN mechanism confirmed that at El Fasher, all the hallmarks of genocide were indeed present.

This was predictable. This was preventable in what is the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe. Tens of thousands have died, including at Darfur's Aldean Teaching Hospital, where 70 people were killed, including 13 children and three medical workers. So why is it important to call out atrocities like this for what they are? Because under the 1948 convention on the Crime of Genocide, such determinations require us to take decisive steps. Our obligations are to prevent, to protect and to punish, and they are crucial in understanding early warning signs of future atrocities.

My Lords, what of that duty to hold perpetrators to account? Why is Omar al-Bashir charged by the International Criminal Court with the 2003 to 2008 genocide in Darfur, a systematic campaign of mass

**** Possible New Speaker ****

killings, rape and forced displacements, which I saw Myself firsthand. Why is he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Myself firsthand. Why is he still at large? Well, his earlier arrest. Be part of the Foreign Secretary's welcome decision to Secretary's welcome decision to create the International Coalition to Prevent further atrocities in. to Prevent further atrocities in. Staying with Africa for a moment and close. I know to the noble Lords heart and where he did great Lords heart and where he did great work as the Africa Minister. Cameron Overlord. Update us on action to bring the perpetrators of wicked crimes in Tigray, especially the targeting of women, to justice.

Are we acting on the noble Baroness Lady Helix admirable proposal for a permanent mechanism focussed on conflict related sexual violence in Nigeria. What assessment has been made of the recent statement of Caleb Huang, who is the Governor of Plateau State? But over 60 entire villages have been eradicated by jihadist militias, he said. I cannot find any explanation other than genocide sponsored by terrorists. Is the FCDO at least conducting a joint analysis of conflict and stability assessment in Nigeria and My Lords in the DRC? The Ebola crisis is happening against the perfect storm of endless atrocities by jihadists and terror groups, including massacres, beheadings and abductions across the eastern provinces of North Kivu and Ituri.

On May 12th, 2025, when I raised the execution of Christians by jihadists, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, told me, I quote, we are alarmed and saddened by the attacks by Is affiliated Allied Democratic Forces. All those who have committed human rights violations and abuses must be held accountable. My Lords, a year has passed. Has anyone been brought to account with gross impunity in so many situations? Is it any wonder that genocide happens over and over again? And what about other theatre of war in Ukraine? As we recall, appalling atrocities committed in Mariupol, Russia, Izyum, Olenivka and elsewhere.

What progress are we making in holding Vladimir Putin's regime to account for his atrocity regimes, including abduction of children and recent reports of forced recruitment? Indeed, trafficking of foreigners to fight in the Russian armed forces in Ukraine. This has been documented by Fortify Rights, on whose leadership council I serve, and Truth Hounds, who later this month will be publishing a groundbreaking report on the use of sexual violence by Russian military against Ukrainian men. What are we doing to support the efforts to ensure justice and accountability for such crimes? Where war crimes occur, wherever they are committed by our foes or our friends, we must uphold the convention, especially the Geneva Convention.

As is clear in Gaza, even wars must be governed by laws. And I refer to my question answered on April the 29th, concerning reports of the deaths of more than 38,000 women and children in Gaza. The convention set the standards for international humanitarian law, and we ignore or abandon them at our peril. Elsewhere in Burma, such war crimes occur on a daily basis during several visits, both legally and illegally. I've walked through the smouldering villages of the Karen State and interviewed survivors of the military's attacks.

I visited a burned out village near the capital, Naypyidaw, in the aftermath of attacks on the Muslim community. Will the noble Lord the Minister, examine the reports by fortify rights about airstrikes and related atrocity crimes across Myanmar? Their call to bring the military, the Arakan Army and Ataullah, the leader of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, to justice for their atrocities. And can the Minister update us on the progress that may have been made in the case brought by The Gambia at the International Court of Justice supported.

I was glad to say and see by the United Kingdom on charges of genocide against the Rohingya, what progress is being made in achieving the request by the ICC prosecutor for an arrest warrant for Myanmar's dictator, Min Aung Hlaing, with Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Member of Parliament I co-chair the all party parliamentary group on North Korea, where human rights violations have been described in a UN Commission of Inquiry report chaired by the Australian Justice Michael Kirby, as a state without parallel.

I've been in North Korea on four occasions, met many escapees and chaired numerous hearings here in Parliament, including one just two weeks ago with Tae Yong ho, the former North Korean deputy ambassador to the UK and one of the highest level defectors. They told us that when the Commission of Inquiry reported senior figures in the North Korean regime, they were initially very nervous when they read that the commission's call for the leadership to be tried by the ICC for crimes against humanity.

But when it became clear, he said, that the international community were not going to act upon the call by the ICC, the regime in Pyongyang regained its confidence. What does this say, my Lords, about the international community's effectiveness in addressing atrocity crimes? Do we have any intention of ever following through on the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and what stops us as a country from leading those efforts? North Korea, like Iran, routinely imprisons, tortures and executes, even for listening to bad music or watching bad movies.

300,000 people are incarcerated in its gulags and prison camps. North Korea, Iran, Russia and China are part of what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, calls a deadly quartette in noting that all four are sanctioned. Me, the House won't be surprised that I'm deeply disappointed by the response we've made to the CCP's atrocities in China. What practical actions have we taken in response to the two independent tribunals, chaired by the eminent lawyer Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who prosecuted Milosevic and which found evidence of genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, a view again endorsed as such by the House of Commons and forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China and on China.

What practical response is the government making to two other inquiries by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Last year we heard evidence of CCP transnational repression in the UK, including the imposition of a bounty on the head of a young woman, Chloe Cheung. The committee unanimously identified the CCP regime as the worst offender and said it should be placed in the top tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. My Lords, when will that happen? And in a second unanimous report, the JCHR also found that state imposed coercive forced labour in Xinjiang is widespread and deeply entrenched in global supply chains, everything from cotton to solar panels.

Is it reasonable to simply do business as usual with the CCP regime, which Sir Jeffrey says is, I quote, interacting with a criminal state? Are we simply turning a blind eye, or rather ravenously eyeing up the next trade deal? The duty to prevent genocide in article one of the convention is triggered. The moment a state learns or should have learned that there's a serious risk of genocide. In 2021, the all party genocide determination amendments to the trade Bill were passed here in this House, with substantial majorities, including eloquent support from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who moved amendments linking trade to human rights violations and called for Magnitsky sanctions on perpetrators.

Some of those things are still waiting to happen. Crafted with the wise assistance of the former Supreme Court judge, my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead, and supported by two former Lord Chancellors. The genocide Amendment was opposed by the Foreign Office and Trade Ministers and ultimately was wrecked by an amendment. Now, section three of the Trade Act 2021, not worth the paper on which it's printed and does nothing for victims and survivors of genocide. Successive governments were lamely repeating the Foreign Office mantra that only a court can decide whether grievous criminality constitutes genocide, whilst disingenuously blocking every attempt to empower our own UK courts to do so.

The failure to provide judicial architecture has a further undesirable effect. It allows the word genocide to be misappropriated and turned into a slogan preventing the High Court from making a determination plays into that sloganeering. The noble Lord may have been encouraged to repeat the FCDO's contention, but failure to formally recognise a genocide doesn't hamper our ability to act. However, as I explained in the case of Darfur, this is far from an empirical reality. And then there's recommendation seven of the Truro Review on Genocide and Atrocity Prevention.

And there's the future of the Mass Atrocity Prevention Hub, which I hope we'll hear more about when the Minister comes to reply. Atrocity crimes come at great cost. They're linked to identity based persecution, collective punishment, sexual violence, a culture of impunity, endless repetition and a deficit of accountability. Playing into security and humanitarian challenges, including the mass displacement of over 120 million people. Instead of obfuscation about the future of the hub, we need clarity. We need transparency. And we must have Jack's assessments that aren't kept secret but must be published so that we know why and what action is being taken.

What is not acceptable is a continuation of the illusion that we have a clear and effective strategy for combating atrocity crimes. In so many respects, my Lords, today's debate puts atrocity crimes back onto the House of Lords agenda, and I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who are ensuring that that will happen. I thank all noble Lords who are going to speak. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be agreed to. By thanking Lord Alton for securing this timely debate. My securing this timely debate. My Lords. Never again was the promise made after the Holocaust. Since made after the Holocaust. Since then, the world has witnessed Cambodia, Rwanda, Baroness Carr, Cambodia, Rwanda, Baroness Carr, Kashmir, Myanmar and more recent mass atrocities in South Sudan, Sudan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere. The promise has been broken too often. Prevention is not a technical footnote to foreign policy.

It is a central test of whether the post 1945 international
15:00
Lord Hussain Portrait Lord Hussain (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
system works. Because once mass killings begin, stopping, it costs more lives, more money, and more credibility than preventing it. First, we must get better at early warning. Early action. Atrocities do not erupt without signs. Hate speech that dehumanise a group. Systematic discrimination. Build up Systematic discrimination. Build up of militias. Attacks on journalists and civil society. Manipulation of elections and identity politics. These are the patterns. UN offices and UN and the NGOs have documented for decades.

The UK helped create the UN Office on Genocide Prevention. But early warnings. Early warning is useless without early action. The UN Security Council must shift from crisis response to prevention. That means the use of General Assembly. General Assembly's uniting for peace procedure more often. When a veto paralyses the Security Council, the General Assembly cannot authorise force, but it can mandate fact finding, sanctions and diplomatic initiatives. And we must fund the UN's prevention architecture properly. And the next thing is what should the British government do? UK has unique tools as a P5 seat holder, strong intelligence capacity, a global diplomatic network and FCDO's atrocity prevention office.

But we need to use them more consistently. By making atrocity prevention a core objective of all UK countries strategies, not just in obvious conflict zones, trade aid and security partnerships should all be screened for risk. The EU, the UK. The UK, India FTA had no human rights clause. That sends the wrong signal. Every agreement should have clear benchmarks and consequences and lead the lead on accountability. UK should support the ICC politically and financially and use the sanctions faster against individuals inciting genocide or crimes against humanity.

Protect those who sound the alarm. Journalists, human rights defenders and local civil society groups are the first to document atrocity risks. Yet they are often the first targets. Our aid and diplomatic protection must prioritise them, address the drivers at home. Genocide does not start with killing. It starts with rhetoric that divides us from them. The UK must enforce laws against incitement to hatred and disinformation that targets ethnic or religious groups, including online. Prevention begins in our own public discourse.

My Lords, we must be honest about inconsistency. The credibility of never again depends on applying it everywhere. When international law is enforced selectively, when some victims get Security Council resolutions and others get silence, the whole framework weakens. Civilians in Sudan, Palestine, Ukraine, Myanmar and the people of Kashmir deserve the same standards of protection. My Lords, prevention is political, not just human, just humanitarian. It means being willing to have difficult conversations with allies and partners. It means accepting the short term stability by ignoring repression usually collapses into long term conflict.

It means the UK, using its p5's voice to push for mediation before killing starts, not after. In conclusion, my Lords, I believe genocide is not a natural disaster. It is a political crime with political causes. It can be prevented if we choose to see the warning signs and act early. The British government should make atrocity prevention a priority across FCDO, MoD and trade policy. The UN should enforce prevention, use the General Assembly when the Security Council is blocked and protect those documenting risk on the ground.

Never again cannot be a slogan we dust off after mass graves are found. It must be the calculation we make when the first warning sign appears. With that, my Lords, may I ask what the government's assessment is of the latest report of renowned international human rights organisation, the Genocide Watch, that indicates that India has reached stage seven preparation of genocide? And what, if I may ask, what steps the British government is taking to stop that genocide taking place? Finally, my Lords, may I ask the government to publish the annual Atrocity Risk assessment and to table a UN General Assembly resolution strengthening early warning and prevention mechanism with the Security Council is where.

When the Security Council is unable to act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. I wish to begin by thanking the noble Lord Lord Alton, my great friend, for securing this my great friend, for securing this debate and also for introducing. Congratulations on introducing your Genocide determination Bill this Genocide determination Bill this morning, and I will, of course be supporting you. But only a few years ago, I too promoted a genocide bill, a Genocide Prevention and Response bill, and it completed all its stages in this
15:06
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
it completed all its stages in this House. And it was meant to proceed to the other place. But we then had an election. However, I am going to remind the House that at the time in opposition, the noble Lord, my great friend Minister Collins, supported my bill and he said that the solution, the solution in the bill is absolutely vital. It's to put on a statutory footing the 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.

Well, as I say, my bill didn't go through. It's a warning to all of you who come up well in the private member's bills ballot, but I hope that the government has not lost that support and that it hasn't dissolved, because a lot has changed in our world over the last two years, unfortunately for the worse. Not only do we witness the highest number of conflicts and atrocity crimes since World War Two, but we also see a global unravelling of the international rules based order, a dismantling which will cost us dearly in the long run.

Yes. And let me start with the United States and and I'm going to mention the inspiration from Elie Wiesel that shaped some of the approaches that was taken by the US before the current administration, the late Elie Wiesel. I had the good fortune of getting to know and meet several times. He was a survivor of the Holocaust and 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, and 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. Now, 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.

And I had the good fortune of working with many of the lawyers who were involved in that. Those structures inside the State Department were not perfect, but far more advanced than anywhere else in the world. Today, however, many of these structures, I'm afraid, have been dismantled. Now, 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.

Now, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is undergoing restructuring again in the name of cutting costs. And there are concerns that the Atrocity Prevention Hub, which already exists but is small and the expertise it contains, may disappear or be absorbed into broader structures. That would be a serious mistake, which we will feel for decades to come. For now, we are being told that the reports are incorrect. I hope that's true. However, we are not provided with any information in relation to these changes and how these changes will affect the UK's work on atrocity prevention and responses.

What risk assessment was done identifying risks, analysing warning signs and ensuring that Her Majesty's Government acts before the early warning signs turn into atrocities. Now, 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're soft pedal on who 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 has been given by Lord Alton about 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.

Trade is important, and I don't resolve from from my view that trade is important. Prosperity matters. But economic interests cannot be an excuse for silence in the face of atrocity crimes. Now, another warning sign that too often is 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. I mean, we're journalists from outside were not allowed in and still not being allowed in India.

Again, we get no coverage now really of what's happening in Kashmir or Assam, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, the list goes on. This matters because atrocities thrive in darkness. Over 200 journalists in Gaza have have been killed. Protecting journalists is therefore an essential component of atrocity prevention and accountability. And throughout these crises, one reality remains painfully constant. Children continue to be among the primary victims. And we've spoken, and it's very close to my heart. What happens to women, the sexualization, the weaponizing of sexual violence in conflict.

But children, too, are continuing to bear the consequences of our collective failures. We see it in Gaza. We've seen it in Russia, in the war on Ukraine, with the abduction of children for forced adoptions. And we're seeing serious war crimes, and we see it across all conflicts, with children being a significant percentage of victims of conflict related sexual violence and many other atrocities. My Lord Alton mentioned Sudan sexual violence on children has been really one of the signatures of that terrible conflict.

Now, let me end by emphasising this. We know more than ever before about how atrocities develop. We know the warning signs. We know the institutions can help to prevent them. And we know the importance of independent journalism, strong diplomacy, international cooperation, and political courage. And so the United Kingdom has that expertise, the diplomatic reach, and the moral authority to lead. Are we prepared to show that leadership. Here?
15:13
Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the noble Lord Lord Alton for securing today's debate and his tireless and principled leadership on atrocity principled leadership on atrocity prevention. His work, including the Genocide Determination Bill and the Genocide Amendment to the trade Genocide Amendment to the trade Bill, both of which I've supported previously, has been indispensable in ensuring that this House continues to confront these issues with the seriousness that they deserve. I'd like to declare my relevant interests, as set out in the register of support provided by the coalition for Global Prosperity, in the form of a parliamentary researcher for one day a week.

I'm a member of the Advisory board for the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes, along with the noble Lord Lord Alton and other noble Lords speaking. This debate, which is chaired by the noble Lady, Baroness Kennedy. The standing Group is conducting an independent review and the UK's approach to atrocity prevention and response, and I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will commit to considering the findings of the group carefully. My Lords, 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's 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 and conflicts, and the Declaration of Humanity, and the adoption of recommendation seven of the Bishop of Truro Review and the establishment of a mass atrocity prevention hub within the FCDO.

Designed to improve early warning and cross-government coordination. And they 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 international capacity and institutional capacity to identify and respond to atrocity risks. Since 2024, the Labour government has expressed a commitment to reinvigorating atrocity prevention policy, including a renewed emphasis on multilateral engagement, and these steps are welcome, but they must be matched with clarity, resourcing and urgency.

My Lords, despite all of these efforts, we continue to see what can only really 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, and meanwhile those institutions rely on national governments to raise alarms, provide evidence and push forward prosecutions. And that 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 Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the systematic violence against Rohingya in Myanmar, the atrocities against Muslims and Christians in India. These are all reminders that atrocity crimes can be perpetrated by states against their own population, often behind a facade of stability. And our frameworks really must evolve to reflect this reality. My Lords, 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've seen widespread and systematic attacks on civilians, including ethnically targeted killings, mass displacement on a scale now exceeding 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, and the growing risk of further genocidal violence, particularly in Darfur, where communities already scarred by past atrocities are once again being targeted. And as the noble Lord Lord Alton has mentioned, after a UN mechanism already identified hallmarks of genocide in a brutal takeover of Al-fashir, international mechanisms have failed to respond with the urgency required and the international system remains paralysed.

And Sudan is not simply a humanitarian crisis. It's an atrocity, crime crisis and an impunity crisis. And it's precisely the kind of crisis that our policies are meant to anticipate and prevent. We often hear, and we often 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 at serious risk of them. My Lords, today is the International Day of the Innocent Children, victims of aggression, and 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, and 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 co-signed, and his indication that the government is considering a new dedicated toolkit for officials is very welcome. But with the ongoing restructure of the FCDO, we need clarity on whether the CAC team will be protected from the Oda cuts and with it, the department's expertise on C, a, C, PSV and atrocity prevention more broadly.

My current understanding is that restructure has been pushed back and will likely conclude by the summer. By the late summer, I'd be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister could comment on that in his response. My Lords, ending impunity remains the single most effective deterrent to atrocity crimes, and this requires action on two fronts. We must lead by example. That means passing the genocide determination. Bill and I look forward to supporting the noble Lord Alton on 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. And it means continuing to support mechanisms such as the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine. The Prime Minister has stated that 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 persecution. So prosecution. So could the noble Lord.

The Minister say if the UK government is considering considering amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to stop these cycles of impunity? Secondly, we must push for stronger international coordination mechanisms, and I would like to ask the Minister what the government is doing to ensure that once the treaty on Crimes against humanity is adopted, that we can implement the duties enshrined in the treaty. And how is the government supporting the process at the UN to make sure it's not watered down, and that it will provide an effective mechanism? With the UK taking on the G20 presidency next year and a G7 presidency the year after, we really have a unique opportunity to elevate atrocity prevention onto the global agenda.

And of course, we cannot ignore the cuts to the UK official development assistance, the largest proportional cuts in the G7, which will bring Oda to its lowest share of gross national income since 1999. And 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. My Lords, 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.

That should also include a mechanism on the conflict related sexual violence, as previously proposed by my noble friend Baroness Helic. If we are to honour our commitments, our moral, our legal and our historical commitments, then we must move from rhetoric to architecture, from aspiration to action. And the tools exist. The evidence is overwhelming and we have a responsibility to take action.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you, my Lords. I too, thank the noble Lord Lord Alton for securing this timely and important debate. And I also thank the House of Lords Library for its extremely helpful briefing. And it's also a helpful briefing. And it's also a privilege to follow the noble Lady and for the great work she does in this area. And I also refer the this area. And I also refer the House to my register of interest as trustee of the Burma Campaign UK and an officer of the All-Party and an officer of the All-Party parliamentary Group on Burma.

Instances of Mass atrocity, violence, crimes against humanity,
15:22
Baroness Nye Portrait Baroness Nye (Labour)
-
-
genocide and ethnic cleansing are not only persisting but in many cases, spiralling. The United cases, spiralling. The United Kingdom has long accepted a responsibility to help protect populations from atrocity crimes populations from atrocity crimes through early warning, prevention, accountability and coordinated international action. Yet the international action. Yet the present persistence of such crimes raises profound questions about whether those mechanisms are being whether those mechanisms are being used effectively and, crucially, early enough. Nowhere are those questions more urgent than in Burma.

Burma's history demonstrates how atrocity crimes follow a recognisable trajectory. Discrimination becomes institutionalised, legal protections are stripped away, persecution intensifies and violence escalates into mass atrocity. Following the 1962 coup, Burma entered decades of authoritarian rule in which political dissent was violently suppressed and minority groups marginalised by the 70s. This had already translated into mass displacement, including the expulsion of around 200,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh. The 1982 citizenship law then rendered the Rohingya effectively stateless, removing any legal protection and exposing them to systematic systemic abuse.

The Tatmadaw has used extreme violence against civilian populations. During the 1988 uprising, thousands were killed in the suppression of pro-democracy protests, entrenching a pattern of impunity that has defined Myanmar ever since. That pattern culminated in the atrocities against the Rohingya mass killings, widespread sexual violence, the destruction of communities, forcing 1 million into exile into Bangladesh. These acts are widely recognised as genocide, alongside crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The lesson is clear, though these outcomes are not inevitable, they occur when warning signs are not acted upon.

Where diplomatic caution replaces decisive action, and where accountability is deferred rather than enforced, this is not simply a matter of history, it's a matter of present policy. Since the 2021 coup, the same patterns have continued. Yet the military adapted not to reform, but to survive. It changes names, reshapes its institutions and offers limited concessions. But the underlying reality does not change. Military control, impunity, and the preservation of power. That is not reform, it's just rebranding. We see this in the so-called elections of last year, which have entrenched that military control rather than loosened it.

We see it in attempts to regain international legitimacy, whether through engagement with Asean or high level diplomatic outreach, such as the leader of the Tatmadaw's visit to India this week as the rebranded president. We see it, too, in gestures such as the transfer of Aung San Suu Kyi from prison to house arrest, designed to encourage re-engagement. We have seen this before, after the 2010 elections. A similar pattern of engagement and ease pressure contributed to an environment in which grave atrocities, including genocide, were allowed to occur.

We must not repeat that mistake. If we are serious about prevention. We must also be serious about pressure. That means working with our allies to target not only individuals, but the military as an institution and its sources of power. It means expanding coordinated action with the United States, the European Union and others to restrict the military's core revenue streams, including oil and gas, which finance its operations. It means strengthening action on aviation, fuel and supply chains, which sustain the airstrikes, devastating civilian populations.

It means tightening restrictions on financial services and military linked entities. And, crucially, it means ensuring that sanctions follow the reality of military control, not the changing names of its institutions. And it also means recognising the UK's particular responsibility as the UN Security Council penholder on Myanmar. In that role, we are not simply a participant in international efforts. We help shape them. That comes with it a duty to lead in doing coordinated action, maintaining pressure and ensuring the Council does not drift into inertia at precisely the moment when sustained action is needed.

At the same time, it is essential that we recognise what is happening beyond military controlled areas. Across Burma, local communities are building democratic systems from the ground up, developing governance structures, consulting citizens and creating new institutions despite ongoing airstrikes. This reflects a central principle of atrocity prevention that protecting populations means supporting resilient, inclusive and democratic alternatives before the violence escalates further. The people of Burma have not given up on democracy, but they cannot succeed alone. So I ask the noble Lords Minister, following on from the questions that Lord Alton has already asked you three questions.

First, on prevention, how is the government strengthening its early warning and response mechanisms to ensure that indicators of mass atrocity crimes, like in Burma, trigger timely and concrete action? Second, on legitimacy, what steps will the government take to ensure that UK engagement does not confer legitimacy on what remains, in substance, a military regime operating under what it hopes a civilian guise? Thirdly, on sanctions and coordination, will the government to commit to working with the United States and international partners to expand coordinated sanctions in three areas oil and gas revenues, aviation, fuel supply chains and financial measures against military linked entities.

And finally, in our role as UN penholder, can the noble Lord, the Minister, say, how is the. How is the UK using its position to advance stronger and more consistent security Council action on Myanmar? My Lords, the lesson from Burma is clear atrocity crimes do not emerge without warning. They develop through patterns that are visible, identifiable and preventable. The question is not whether we understand those patterns. The question is whether we act on them. That means sustained pressure, refusing legitimacy to a regime built on violence and standing firmly with the people of Burma in their pursuit of a democratic future.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare I declare an interest as a patron of redress. My Lords, as a patron of redress. My Lords, no one has done more in this House to persuade governments to act decisively, to prevent and stop decisively, to prevent and stop atrocity crimes than the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He and and others Lord Alton. He and and others efforts. And here I must mention the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of
15:28
Baroness D'Souza Portrait Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
-
-
the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws have ceaselessly attempted to insert amendments to any likely Bill that comes before this House, and certainly to any relevant bill that comes before this House. For example, amendments to the International Criminal Court Act of 2001 Crime and Policing Bill in 2005, and, of course, to the trade bill in 2021, which failed despite strenuous efforts on the part of my noble friend and widespread support in this House for this. We all owe the noble Lord and his colleagues a debt of gratitude.

But, my Lords, there's still a long way to go. The need for reform is long standing and reflects a structural gap in UK law. We've had in clear terms both what obligations the UK shoulders as signatory to the international treaties that address the issue of atrocities. We know that governments do not have to wait for a full blown genocide, as happened in Rwanda in 1994. The onus is on governments to act when there is a serious risk of genocide.

The UK has not undertaken such preventive actions in recent years. The noble Lord Alton also reminds us that we must include and we must consider war crimes, crimes against humanity and the UK obligations arising from the UN responsibility to protect. Commitment adopted by Member States in 2025. But, my Lords, between 2000 and 2020, almost 40 countries had experienced mass atrocities or serious concerns that they could take place imminently. Currently, atrocity crimes are at the centre of four UK foreign policy crises Ukraine, Sudan, Israel and Palestine and Iran.

However, experience demonstrates that the governments that governments and perhaps to this government tends to ignore the facts of atrocity such as was reported in the Daesh and Burma's military atrocities by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, or the recommendations from the Joint Committee reports on Joint Committee on Human Rights reports and the International Development Committee reports on Srebrenica in 2023. So, my Lords, what might be the underlying reasons for this inaction? Well, we've heard some of the answers.

A straightforward answer could be that governments sometimes go to extreme lengths to avoid taking actions to stop genocide and other atrocities, in part due to the international diplomatic and economic risks. Entails is reported, for example, that during the Rwanda massacres, USA officials were advised not to use the term genocide precisely because to do so would have immediately invoked the duty to intervene. A key mechanism for justifying such inaction has, for many years in the UK, been the argument as to who is competent to determine the fact of genocide deemed by the UK, at least to be a need.

The need for a legal definition issued only by a ruling from the courts. However, my Lords, in today's world of information transfer, the evidence of genocide and other atrocities is recorded, verified and documented by any number of competent, internationally recognised bodies such as the International Committee of the Red cross and several international human rights organisations, including well attested local human rights organisations. If the Geneva Conventions require action on the basis of a serious threat of genocide, there is absolutely no scarcity of reliable information.

Once again, I ask and we ask the government in this debate to return to remedies put forward in recent years and to reconsider their adoption. A Genocide Determination Bill by Lord table by Lord Alton. In 2021, empowered groups affected by atrocities or representative organisations to apply to the UK's UK courts for a judicial determination of genocide or the risk thereof. These bills aimed to enable the courts as a neutral arbiter to make interim determinations of genocide and thereby get a faster response.

These bills this Bill, as others, failed due to. Lack of time, amongst other reasons. Undeterred, as we've heard today, the noble Lord has once again tabled a Genocide Determination bill this morning, and we we wish him every possible success, and we'll give him every possible support. The Joint Committee on Human Rights produced two reports in 2025 recommending the adoption and incorporation of universal jurisdiction, a hugely important aspect of law in the fight against genocide. The adoption, incorporation of universal jurisdiction as an amendment to the International Criminal Court Act of 2001 to remove the requirement that alleged perpetrators of atrocities be British citizens or residents, which effectively allows Britain to be a safe haven for Putin's henchmen or indeed, the Taliban.

The principle of universal jurisdiction has yet to be incorporated into UK law. These reports and draft legislation offer varied mechanisms for preventive action. Overall, my Lords, we have not as yet got a clear national strategy for the prevention of atrocities which we desperately need. And such a strategy might include strengthening of FCDO capacity to detect early warning indicators, and to develop mechanisms for interventions. Amongst these must be the willingness to confront authoritarian states and anti-democratic statecraft as a national security priority.

The goal must be to embed clear and transparent thresholds of threat and the triggers for action, and in so doing, provide a lead for other departments, for example, Department of Trade, in considering their own policies and action. My Lords, I'd like to end with a quote from a paper entitled A Dangerous Moment for UK Atrocity Prevention Policy by the organisation organisation called Protection Approaches, strategy, ambition and opportunity must triumph over hesitancy. Absence of clarity regarding the UK policy position, lack of confidence and a reluctance to put forward creative policy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

options that centre on saving lives. My Lords, in the early 1990s I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in the early 1990s I worked in Tigray in northern Ethiopia. Aksum, which is on the more or less on the southern border more or less on the southern border with Eritrea. I was there for a few months as an archaeologist. Before I went, I did hardly any research about the area. My life at the time was travelling around the Near East to different digs, and I had got a to different digs, and I had got a bit blasé about new countries, new currencies and new languages.

We were lodged in Axum in a very basic but secure hotel, a bit like a Roman house, three sides and well fenced. A big gate on the fourth side. On such digs one worked with local people who also dig. And while we worked we chatted. The locals came across as subdued, very thin and didn't really talk much
15:36
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
about their lives, past or present. Much later I realised, of course, that they were suffering from quite that they were suffering from quite severe trauma. The food at the hotel was very basic. After long hotel was very basic. After long days working at 6000ft. At one point I had 12 small trenches open on a hillside, which meant quite a on a hillside, which meant quite a lot of exercise. We came back to almost always the same meal boiled goat pasta and tinned tomato sauce.

I was vegetarian at the time, but as I lost weight quite quickly, I began to eat the goat meat as well. Our host would go to the market, buy three little goats at a time and let them graze. Tethered together in the grass, outside the hotel, inside the hotel. Then one day there would just be two grazing and fresh boiled goat on the menu. The lack of vegetables and fruit was not that the local people weren't good at farming and growing, but as a result of the past burning of crops and destruction of trees and bushes.

Plus, of course, the denying of food from international organisations. This was all caused by the conflict of a few previous years. For example, in 1989 there was an advance southward by the rebel forces of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. The Eprdf, a coalition led by the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front, the Tplf, the rebels thrust within 100 miles of Addis Ababa and to fight the Tplf. The authorities forcibly conscripted, conscripted tens of thousands of young men and boys, some as young as 13 or 14, in violation of international law and Ethiopian regulations on military service.

A year later, in 1990, there was a major defeat with the loss of the port town Massawa, which is on the Red sea coast to the north of Eritrea, to the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. The Eplf is everybody keeping up and during the fighting, 200 civilians were killed, many of them kept hostage as human shields by retreating government forces. Massawa. The port was repeatedly bombed by government aircraft using napalm or phosphorus bombs, high explosives and cluster bombs. Main targets were places where civilian refugees were encamped outside the town.

About 25,000 tons of food donated by international humanitarian organisations were burned, and the government prevented a ship carrying relief supplies from docking by threatening to attack it. On numerous occasions, soldiers in garrison towns near the front line arbitrarily opened fire on local residents, including women and children. Local women were forced to work as cooks, cleaners and prostitutes with the soldiers. A year later, in 1991, there were killings of demonstrators who were protesting against the new Eprdf government. So a major humanitarian crisis developed as a result of the war, which led to a widespread famine.

Hence the food that we were eating as archaeologists, and probably a lot better than the local people were managing to eat. It also inflicted immense economic damage on the region, with the cost of rebuilding alone estimated to be tens of billions of pounds, but not a genocide, apparently. And then nearly three decades later, in 2020 to 22, there was an acknowledged genocide committed in Tigray. Estimates suggest 162,000 to 600,000 civilians were killed, with over 120 women raped and more than 6 million Tigrayans affected by violence, displacement and famine.

Over 2.2 million people were displaced, and the destruction of healthcare and social infrastructure left the region in crisis, with maternal mortality rates quadrupling. This is a deeply traumatised country. In 2024, the Australian Greens expressed deep concern over the continuing humanitarian crisis in Tigray, citing the New Lines Institute genocide report. They believe the actions of Ethiopian and Eritrean forces may constitute genocide and urge the Australian government to support accountability. And so I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Alton for bringing this debate, and I think we here must do the same.

I hope the government listens to our debate. I'd also like to mention, of course, the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 16, when around 105, 101.5 million Armenians who lived in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 were possibly as many as 1.2 million of them were killed. They were killed either in massacres or individual killings, or from systematic ill treatment, exposure and starvation. Now, as of today, the UK does not officially genocide as it is not that that genocide, as it is not for governments to decide whether genocide has been committed.

As this is a complex legal question, however, it does recognise the terrible suffering that was inflicted on Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire and acknowledges the strength of feeling regarding this terrible episode of history. Well, that's good then, isn't it, that they recognise the suffering and of course, genocide in Gaza, which other noble Lords have mentioned. There are recommendations for the government from Action Aid, which would end our government's complicity and uphold its obligations under international law. And really, it should act urgently, consistently and concretely to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes, crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

It is for me who doesn't talk about this issue a lot. I talk about human rights a lot, but this particular issue I don't talk about a lot. It does seem a rather haphazard process about when does a humanitarian disaster become an atrocity, become a massacre, become a genocide? My view is the UK must uphold international law, consistently support accountability wherever violations occur, and ensure it is never complicit in the crimes it claims to oppose. It really doesn't look like that at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the moment. I'd like to thank my noble friend Lord Alton for arranging for friend Lord Alton for arranging for us to have this debate today, and for all the work that he's doing with us and outside of this House. with us and outside of this House. And further, congratulations on the private member's bill, which we will all support, and I'm sure will all support, and I'm sure others will outside this House, too. My Lords, the crimes, crimes of My Lords, the crimes, crimes of atrocity are just awful.

I've worked on this subject for decades. From the numerous debates, the important conversations in this House, and with my work as an adviser to the Georgetown Institute for women, Peace and Security. My Lords, I've come to know with absolute certainty that atrocity
15:43
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
crimes do not start on the day that this House or an international community notices them. There are community notices them. There are always warning signs as we. As though the targeting of minorities, silencing of certain groups, my Lords, dehumanising language and very often through the deliberate very often through the deliberate use of sexual violence as a as a weapon of war, the Georgetown weapon of war, the Georgetown Institute recent index, which has just been updated, will show you in many countries where the signs for this is happening throughout the world.

The question, my Lords, is therefore not only how we recognise these crimes, but how we use government policy and our global influence. My Lords, to prevent these crimes from escalating in the first place. I think, for example, just coming up is the G20 and the G7, where we should be able to insist that this issue is on the agenda. We have an opportunity to have the agenda and to keep it on the agenda. July last year marked 20 years since we, as the international community, recognised the responsibility to protect.

But from 2000 to 2020, at least 37 countries either certainly or highly likely experienced atrocity crimes of some nature. My Lords, the world is now witnessing the highest number of armed conflicts and other noble friend Lord Robertson says the world is at war and the world is now witnessing, as I said, the highest number of crimes and since the end of World War Two and the attacks on civilians and widespread violations of international humanitarian law are brazenly conducted with impunity, my Lords, we have to do more to protect other countries and to enforce these crimes through the international courts and through our own organisations that we, as a global member of my Lords in Ukraine, we know that civilians and children are being targeted and where there are reports of abductions of Ukrainian children in Sudan, the people of Darfur were are prosecuted and killed based on ethnicity, and there are well-established reports of rape and other forms of sexual violence in Manama.

The Rohingyas have suffered grievously in Afghanistan. My Lords, women and girls have been erased from public life. And in Gaza, the suffering of civilians, especially women and children, is devastating. Unfortunately, this is in the name of too few such cases. My Lords, we have to put pressure on the international communities to work against these Impunities. I welcome the governments clear commitment to atrocity prevention and in particular through the work of the Conflict and Atrocity Prevention Department, which I hope will not be affected in redistribution of funds and reorganisation of the FCDO.

I welcome the government's stated intention to strengthen its ability to identify risks at the earliest possible stage, to uphold international law and to work with international partners to save lives. My Lords, atrocity prevention is not. Is not the tools the same as conflict prevention and atrocity prevention requires distinctive skills, systems and tools. I hope that the Ministers will ensure that our approach is a cross-government and that our diplomats and experts, defence teams with specialists all have the training and the political support necessary to act urgently and early and coherently.

My Lords, in the months ahead, I hope that Ministers will continue to strengthen a clear, cross-government approach to prevention. That means ensuring that our diplomats, development experts, defence teams and the sanctions specialists have the tools and training and support from the government and political support they need to identify early risks and act coherently. But also, I would like to take a moment to remind the government that women, peace and security must remain central to the agenda. Women are, of course, both victims and survivors of atrocity crimes, but they are also the route to sustained peace through the work as peacebuilders, as human rights defenders, as mediators, and as early warning actors.

My Lords, you must use their knowledge and expertise to shape our analysis, our programming, and our diplomacy and and fulfilling the countries that they have this in the after peace, because it is women who understand what is needed in development, in health, education, and what they need for the future and the long term of those countries where women signed peace agreements. We know those agreements stay. My Lords, I support the proposal advanced by my noble friend Baroness Lady Heller, for a permanent International Investigative Commission on Conflict related Sexual Violence.

My Lords, such a mechanism would help to ensure that evidence is gathered properly, that survivors are treated with dignity and their sexual violence is investigated as a core feature feature of atrocity crimes and not as an afterthought. I would say. My Lords, I declare an interest as per the register, and I welcome this debate. I thank the Lord, the Lord for introducing it, and I pay tribute to him and to
15:49
Baroness Helic Portrait Baroness Helic (Conservative)
-
-
Lady Kennedy as well, for giving voice to the survivors of atrocity crimes, the pressing successive governments to act before warning becomes catastrophe. My Lords, we cannot speak credibly about cannot speak credibly about preventing genocide while disregarding existing mechanisms con Convention, the Rome International Courts and international humanitarian law. A problem is not the absence of legal frameworks, it is the absence of political will and moral clarity. Our preparedness to use what tools we have. As the United Nations secretary general recently warned, we are witnessing a dangerous erosion of respect for international law.

Whatever view we hold of any individual conflict of any individual state, the law cannot be selectively applied. Where grave violations occur, accountability must always follow whoever the perpetrators are. My Lord, genocide does not begin with mass killings. As others have said, it begins with the humanisation, with the erosion of legal protections, impunity for attacks on civilians and the use of sexual violence to terrorise communities. Just to mention a few. Our recent history, however, shows that prevention is possible, but only when the states are prepared to act.

In 1998 in Kosovo, we showed that timely intervention and action saves lives. I am not arguing military intervention. However, states have many tools available to them sanctions, arms embargoes, travel bans, effective diplomacy and legal action. We just have to be prepared to use them. Yet hesitation remains endemic. Each time the international community decides the moment to act has not yet arrived, the promise of never again grows weaker. Today, warning signs are visible across multiple conflicts. I will mention just a few in Sudan, the United Nations and other independent bodies have documented credible allegations of ethnic massacres, widespread atrocities, and conflict related sexual violence.

In El Fasher, survivors described how armed men asking victims whether they were soldiers and civilians and then killing them, regardless of answer. In conducting what was described as a full hallmarks of genocide in Gaza, we have watched restrictions on food and medical supplies, large scale displacement and credible allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law. The gravity of these concerns has been underscored by international organisations and legal experts, even in some situations, by the members of Israel Defence Force.

One soldier recently recalled that the world's civilian was scarcely mentioned during operations. Others described practices that, if verified, entirely, disregard the laws of armed conflict, including the alleged use of occupied Palestinians as so-called mosquitoes in place of sleeping dogs to trigger booby traps in Xinjiang, systematic repression of beggars continues, as well as Protestants and other Christian groups, including pervasive surveillance, coercive social control and restrictions on cultural and religious life. More broadly, the latest report of the United Nations Secretary General of conflict related sexual violence records a dramatic increase of such crimes, in addition to other additional countries like Russia, but also democracies like Israel, which is which shows the moral collapse that has happened in that country.

The Lord Mancroft related sexual violence is not incidental. It is deployed deliberately to face displacement, to force the displacement and destroy the fabric of communities. The United Kingdom once led international efforts to conflict, to confront these crimes through Psvi, Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict initiative and our leadership must not be allowed to diminish. Recently, it seems to have. I fully note and welcome the latest initiative by the Foreign Office on Countering Violence against Women and Girls. But we have to do more about this.

I therefore would like to put several questions to the Minister, if I may. First, what further steps will the government take to strengthen the United Kingdom's capacity to identify and respond to genocide and atrocity crimes at an early stage? I hope parliamentary time will be given, so that will be available for the noble Lords Private Member's Bill, which I hope to support. Secondly, has the time come to update our policy on universal jurisdiction to ensure that the United Kingdom does not become, as others have pointed, a safe haven for individuals implicated in genocide, crimes against humanity and other serious international crimes.

Thirdly, can the noble Lord say what exact mechanisms are used by the government to ensure that the warnings from international investigators, courts and monitoring bodies trigger preventive action rather than retrospective expression of concern? And finally, will the government reaffirm the United Kingdom's commitment to preventing conflict related sexual violence through sustained support for documentation, accountability and international coordination? I hope the Prime Minister will appoint a new special envoy on this issue, as this position has remained vacant since November last year, while the crimes have been increasing, not because they have decreased, not because we are in a better place, but we are in a much worse place.

When we were last year. But the question is not whether we possess the legal instruments to confront and prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. We do. The question is whether we possess the resolve to use them in a timely way. Too often, the international community acts only after the worst has happened, and so do we. And prevention requires vigilance, consistency, and the courage to uphold our principles. Although I hope that, in conclusion, you will not mind me reminding the late Sir Alex Younger, whose distinguished public service reflected a profound understanding that national security and democratic values cannot be separated.

As he put it, if we undermine the values we defend even in the in the name of defending them, then we have lost that warning, which is far beyond the world of intelligence and security. It applies with equal force to our response to war crimes, the credibility of international law rests not on the principles we proclaim in comfortable times, but on our willingness to uphold them when doing so is hard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, all of us are deeply indebted to Lord Alton, who is like indebted to Lord Alton, who is like a dog with a bone. That's not a very noble metaphor, but I couldn't very noble metaphor, but I couldn't think of anything else as he keeps on reminding us of the importance on reminding us of the importance of these issues and the hard work that he does, not just in making a
15:56
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Portrait Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Labour)
-
-
fine speech, but behind the scenes in gathering people together, keeping us focussed and reminding all of us of the of an aspect of the world we live in, which is to be worried about. So I'm grateful, as I am to other members of this House, for making us aware in different places around the world of atrocities that are being committed, being the failures in our systems to to deal with them, and the need for better measures in the future.

My observations will be of a more general nature. I've been a member of the delegation from this Parliament to the Council of Europe for the last five years, and I sit on its immigration committee less than three weeks ago, a declaration was put out a Chisinau. It was called the capital of Moldova. Declaration that came from the foreign Ministers of all the countries of Europe who were convened to look at the problems relating to the legislation as it is embodied in national legislatures dealing with immigration and the role of the European Court of Justice.

And so there's a crisis that's being perceived in Strasbourg about the erosion of aspects of our conventions, dealing with refugees and asylum seekers and immigration generally, and around the continent, different countries are taking different ways of eating into some of the things that were provided all those years ago in the aftermath of the Second World War. And so the declaration is an attempt to make sense of all of that and to rally the troops around the core and values that are at the heart of that convention, and then also at the Council of Europe, the Secretary General, Mr.

Alain Berset, has recognised that similar things are happening to democracy itself. Now, the Council of Europe is dedicated to monitoring what happens in the field of the rule of law, the human rights and democracy, And he has established a democratic pact which seeks once again, through all the agencies and institutions that come under the aegis of the Council of Europe. To take another look at how our democracies are working and whether there's a need to bring in changes, modifications, but once again, to rally the troops.

Now, these two things are happening in Strasbourg, and they have caused me to ask the question whether some similar exercise doesn't need to happen in relationship to the mechanisms that emerge from the Second World War in the field of justice and the implementation of justice and the issues that we've been concerned about today. After the Nuremberg trials. There were there was a convention passed almost at once for the prevention and punishment of genocide. Raoul Lemkin and Hersch Lauterpacht had a similar and parallel proposal, which was to have a convention for the Prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.

80 years later, of course, we still don't have that. Now, at the United Nations, I understand over the last 15 years or so, they are working at, and they have had several drafts put before them to make good that omission. And they promised that this year and next will be the years of working to bring such a convention for ratification in 2028. All of this is to say that these different organisations that exist, I mean, public awareness of the European Court, the European Court of Human Rights, is negligible.

Add in what we think of the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice and the convention for genocide, and the ways in which we cope with the absence of a convention, a treaty, on, on, on, on crimes against humanity. And you have all the elements for a state of confusion and certainly not for public awareness. My holy text is good for a religious man to talk about holy texts, but in this case, it's it's Philip Sand's book, East Street, West Street, which is truly a fantastic piece of work.

But if you look at the epilogue of of that, where he talks about the ways in which he has litigated, which, where he has been involved in the various kinds of cases that deal both with crimes against humanity and genocide, and how it has come to pass that there's a kind of league fight between the two categories of crime, and that the crime of genocide is placed above in what people seek in appropriate circumstances over crimes against humanity.

And he feels that that puts a difficulty in the way of legislators. He finds it extremely difficult to litigate because he sees that the cases he pursues in court run as a. As a consequence, the risk of forming victims who consolidate their opposition and. And perpetrators who consolidate themselves in the position they're defending. In other words, producing two categories of people at loggerheads with each other, which is exactly what the cases are intended to solve.

I find all of this bewildering, and I just wish there were an opportunity which one could feel that there was a kind of, I don't know what you'd call it, a commission that would try to bring together the mechanisms and institutions that are at the heart of all these concerns in the ever more complicated world in which we live, so that we could have more hope of consolidated, consequential and positive outcomes in the future. Debates like this remind us of the need for such clarification.

One can only hope that perhaps Her Majesty's Government can solve all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

its problems by committing itself to precisely that kind of outcome. Yeah. Excellent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Excellent. The debate we're having today is an essential one. And my noble friend Lord Alton, is to be congratulated on bringing us back to it, as he does regularly, and to it, as he does regularly, and for good reason. It's also a rather for good reason. It's also a rather paradoxical debate, because while the appalling crimes being committed around the world are not being reduced, but rather are being intensified, the collective response of governments is feeble and flawed.

In the first half of the 1990s, two completely horrendous genocides were committed one at Srebrenica in Bosnia and the other in Rwanda. The international community was horrified, not least because of the inadequacy of its own response to the head of the crimes for which, as Britain's
16:04
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
ambassador, UN time, I feel some responsibility. The UN Security Council's reaction then, was strong. It established two international tribunals to identify and to try tribunals to identify and to try those who committed the crimes, and many of those are now in prison for many of those are now in prison for the rest of their lives. Later in that decade, an international criminal court was established as a standing instance to try many of these crimes, and later still, the International Court of Justice took up claims on which it is still to give a ruling.

So something was being done, hopefully to deter these crimes and then to bring to justice the perpetrators of them. But since then, all the developments have been in a negative direction. They've been going backwards. The UN Security Council has been blocked by abusive vetoes of several of its members. Many significant member states have declined to join the International Criminal Court or to honour its rulings. And our principal ally, the United States, is doing its best to put the International Criminal Court out of business.

This is a miserable record, and no wonder perpetrators of these crimes have not been deterred. So what needs to be done? Well, first, I think there should be another attempt to get the UN Security Council to agree that when genocide is at issue, a veto will not be in order. Such an attempt may not succeed, but those who block it should be required to take responsibility for their actions. And I hope the Minister will say that the government would support such an attempt.

If this cannot be agreed in the Security Council, then the UN General Assembly, which takes its decisions by a majority and where vetoes do not apply, should be encouraged to express its views on these crimes and to bring to bear the court of international public opinion. And thirdly, can the government not extract itself from the catch 22 of saying that it's only for a court to rule on the issue of genocide, when no such decision is available, even when there is prima facie evidence that genocide is being committed.

And my noble friend Lord Alton raised that point again. And I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will respond to it. Speaking as a non-lawyer myself, I do sometimes feel, and I'm not here speaking for one moment about those who intervened in this debate, or above all, in my noble friend Lord Alton. I do feel that accusations of genocide are sometimes thrown around too freely. There are plenty of war crimes and atrocities that are being committed, which do not necessarily amount to genocide, but which surely should be brought to international justice.

In conclusion, I trust that our government will not conceal from the current US administration how much we are dismayed by the vindictiveness of their proceedings against the International Criminal Court. Whether the US joins the Rome Statute is a matter for them to decide. The attacks they are directing at the ICC is hardly fitting for a country which established the international tribunals after the Second World War, and which voted for the Yugoslav and the Rwanda tribunals. The matters were debating are at the heart of our values in international affairs, and I trust we will promote them strongly in the period ahead and not always shelter behind a rather complex

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legal arguments. My Lords. About a year ago I gave one of my first speeches in gave one of my first speeches in your Lordships House. It was a debate also led by my noble Lord, debate also led by my noble Lord, Lord Alton. On this very subject. I said then that as a rookie peer my aspiration was to become more like aspiration was to become more like David Alton as I grow up. I'm not sure how much progress I've 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
16:09
Lord Rook Portrait Lord Rook (Labour)
-
-
after the event. Now, obviously, accountability and justice matter, but prevention matters as much, if 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, begin after the horror has happened, but before an atrocity occurs in the first place. Commissioned by the then Foreign secretary, Jeremy the then Foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, in 2019. The Truro Review examined the persecution of Christians around the world.

However, its insights extend far beyond this one religion and its recommendations explicitly called upon government to protect and promote freedoms across every community. The author of the review, Bishop Philip Mounstephen, then Bishop of Truro, now serves as the Bishop of Winchester. The right reverend Prelate regrets that he cannot be in his place today due to long standing commitments. And while I make a poor substitute in his absence, I wish to remind the house of his excellent work. This groundbreaking publication garnered praise and support from experts and leaders from around the world.

Following its publication in 2019. The government accepted all recommendations and created the post for an 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, and necessarily to recognise those warning signs before they escalate into mass atrocities. Recommendation seven calls for mechanisms to facilitate and immediate response to atrocity crimes, including genocide. It specifically highlighted the need for early warning mechanisms, preventative diplomacy and upstream prevention work.

My hon. Friend and the Other place David Smith MP, who serves as the UK 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 to infer that 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 is advancing the work outlined in the Truro Review in 2019. It certainly is. The question is what more could and should be done to prevent atrocities, crimes against humanity and genocide specifically. 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, where warning signs were 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 seven 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 Museums 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 Alton and others have repeatedly made clear in this debate, both in government and 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 he sought to prevent atrocities where and whenever possible.

I am hugely grateful for the efforts of my noble friend and have three questions for the government in this debate. Firstly, 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, a mass atrocity prevention hub. And what dedicated atrocity prevention capability currently exists within the FCDO? Secondly, and in line with this, does the government intend to publish a clear assessment of progress against recommendation seven of the Truro Review, setting out what has been implemented, what remains outstanding and how effectiveness is currently being measured.

And thirdly, would my noble friend the Minister and the UK Special Envoy for Religious Freedom or Belief host a private roundtable with peers who have participated in this debate and those officials who are currently working on these issues to discuss them further. My Lords, 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 deserves 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, then 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 seven is being taken forward in practice.

My Lords, prevention delayed. Is prevention denied? Put simply, the best time to stop an atrocity is before it starts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome this debate and congratulate Lord Alton on securing it, and for the manner in which he moved today's motion. My Lords, this of course, follows the first reading earlier today of the Genocide Determination Bill, a private member's bill introduced by Lord Alton himself to provide an Lord Alton himself to provide an avenue for justice to victims of the crime of genocide, a topic of the crime of genocide, a topic of concern to me. Also, in the few minutes available today, I wish to focus on avenues for justice and accountability for international crimes.

There is one particular case on which I wish to focus a case, which I have previously raised in this chamber, relating to the tragic death of Ryan Evans of Wrexham, who was working for Reuters in the Ukraine in August 2024, covering alleged atrocities committed by the Russians in the Ukraine. The hotel, in which Reuters team were staying was hit by a Russian missile. Ryan was killed and nine others were injured. I raised this by way of an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, but we were unable at that stage to persuade the government to adopt it.

The reply I received in that debate made me question whether the government understands what a victim survivor centric response to international crimes means, or indeed, what victim survivor centric justice should look like. On that day in February, I was told that the UK government was already doing a lot to support justice and accountability in Ukraine, such as by providing training for lawyers, judges and others. However, even now, I have received no response as to what the government is doing to provide justice and accountability for Ryan's family.

So may I ask this question what has the present UK government done to support Ryan's family in their pursuit of justice and accountability for his premature and unlawful death? My Lords, as it is, the families of such victims are left powerless. This is totally at odds to the victim survivor centric approach, which the government has always stressed. I ask in all seriousness, what does the government expect the family of Ryan Evans to do? Seek justice in the Ukraine? There must surely be an easier way.

The UK government may be aware that while the law in this country does not allow it, other countries have managed to find a way to ensure that their citizens, as victims and survivors of international crimes abroad, can seek justice through their domestic courts. This is called a passive personality jurisdiction and allows a state to prosecute foreign nationals for crimes committed abroad. When the victim is a citizen of that prosecuting state. It is the citizenship of the victim survivors that is the critical factor.

Such laws exist in France, Germany, Spain, Canada and Lithuania, amongst others. Indeed, Lithuania is investigating the killing of its own citizen, Mantas Quader. Who was killed by the Russian military in Mariupol in February 2024. The prosecutor general of Lithuania announced that three soldiers had been identified as suspects and charged with the killings of Mantas. Why would we not want to help our citizens seek justice before our domestic courts? Why can other countries find a more humane solution than we can? If a small country like Lithuania, the size of Wales can do it, surely it is not beyond the capability of the UK to do likewise.

Or is it just a matter of not having the political commitment to deliver justice for UK citizens caught in such tragic circumstances? I did, in fact, enter a bill for these purposes in the private member's Bill ballot earlier this year, but was unsuccessful. I will, however, continue to seek opportunities to press for British citizens who are victims of international crimes to have clear avenues of justice and accountability. I do so in memory of Ryan and for his family, and for future victims and their families, all of whom will suffer the same challenges until the law in the UK

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is changed. I am most grateful to my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool for never having stopped keeping up the never having stopped keeping up the pressure for our awareness of human rights, often at great personal rights, often at great personal expense to himself and in fact to his family. And I'm also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins,
16:21
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his support. Going back many years, when we first were exposing the issue of illegal organ harvesting and transplantation. And it's on that topic that I wish to focus now, because that is a really despicable side effect, if you like, of some of the terrible killings that go on around the world in 2024. Overall, across the world, it was estimated that there were 173,727 organs transplanted. Overall, 47,000 of which came from deceased donors.

And these figures come actually from the Global Observatory on the Donation and transplantation. So this is international data submitted to the Global observatory. When you look at at Great Britain, UK and Ireland and the USA, the figures are pretty comprehensive and they're properly registered. When you look at other countries that we have been discussing today. Very often it's blank the whole way down all the columns, nothing is declared. There are figures given by China, but I'll come on to those in a moment.

The problem has been that the demand for organs has outstripped supply through legal ethical routes. And I've had an involvement and declare my role now as patron in establishing the Commonwealth tribute to life through NHS blood and transplant. Well, we've been trying to ensure that there are ethical transplant practices across the whole of the Commonwealth and in the Commonwealth countries. We've had some success with memorandums of understanding and a decrease in sale of organs, particularly kidneys, but it's very hard to get a full picture because of the secret nature of this activity.

Organ harvesting, of course, involves illegally removing parts of a body for transplant, for commercial gain, with or without the victim's so-called consent. And under modern slavery laws, of course, a victim cannot consent to their own exploitation. The China Tribunal in 2020, set up by Sir Geoffrey Nice, again with enormous courage, revealed very much of what was going on in China, and he found that the waiting times were so short days or weeks in places where voluntary donation systems could not possibly have been providing all of the organs that were used and documented.

The problem of Falun Gong practitioners being targeted since 1999 and the mass detention of of people in Japan province, with forced medical screenings and biometric analysis. There was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting. Survivors who managed to escape Chinese custody had provided accounts, including to British Medical Journal detailing Unconsented practices and escaping very narrowly from surgery. Internationally, most of the victims seem to be men, with about two thirds of reported cases involving May, men from whom their organs have been taken.

And that's the UN data. Their victims are poor, uneducated, unemployed. They're often asylum seekers, refugees and from minority backgrounds. And shockingly and surprisingly, North Africa and the Middle East have the highest share of detected victims, which had been reported by the United States Department of State Office to monitor and combat trafficking in persons. I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Sugg for having raised the issue of children overall caught up because, horrifically, children are being trafficked for their organs globally.

There are reports of teenage girls having their ovaries harvested unknowingly in order for those to be trafficked for profit, and some of the reports anecdotally come out of Nigeria, the victims are mostly men, though, leaving women and girls without a provider for their families. The female spouses then become obliged to donate their organs because the the man in the family is ill or has perhaps died. And there's another breadwinner there, and women have been trafficked, as I have said, adult women too, for their ovaries and for their eggs.

If I look at Afghanistan in in 2023, there were recorded documented 459 kidneys that were transplanted. But actually the United Nations estimates that 59% of the population are in need of life saving humanitarian aid. And so the pressures on people to donate were phenomenal. And just one quote from a mother was that my children roam on the streets begging. If I don't sell my kidney, I will be forced to sell my one year old daughter. This was a mother in 2021 in Afghanistan.

More recently, the state has said that it is un-Islamic to undertake any organ transplantation, and it's notable that the latest return for 2004 on the observatory shows no kidneys at all. I don't believe that it is a zero, but it's just completely hidden. I'm also grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Nye for highlighting Burma, because in Myanmar there are young people who are removed, who are killed, and in the morning, when their body has been left outside their family's door, they've often been opened and seemed to have had their organs stripped out.

And there does seem to be fast track routes through some of the airports for organs to be taken to China for transplantation. So what has been the response from China? Well, it. Beijing initially denied accusations, but admitted in 2015 that it had routinely harvested organs from executed death row prisoners. Now, the Chinese government asserts it completely ended that practice in 2015, and that they rely entirely on voluntary citizen donation systems. There is an enormous worry about how so-called consent is obtained.

The United States have got a Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act to impose property blocking and sanctions. The European Union have passed resolutions on member institutions to aggressively evaluate and sever medical training and research, collaboration with such teams, and medical sanctions from the National Institute of Health have historically published first hand witnesses. But I feel that from my own professional group, we need to ensure the World Medical Association takes this much more seriously, because far too often health care professionals are intimately involved through threats, intimidation, and fear for their own family and possibly may be killed if they do not participate in this signal of overwhelming abuse around the world.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Like other.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lords, I too am in awe of Lord Alton for his patience and persistence in keeping the question persistence in keeping the question of atrocity prevention before this chamber. I want to thank him and indeed all those who have spoken. indeed all those who have spoken. It's not my intention to repeat anything of what has already been said, but rather to go deeper in said, but rather to go deeper in one particular area. That's of the relationship between conflict prevention and overseas aid.

The wholesale dismantling of the United
16:30
Lord Bishop of Leicester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
-
-
States Agency for International Development has given us, for the first time, something close to a controlled experiment in what happens when a major donor abruptly happens when a major donor abruptly walks away from fragile states. Yes. A study published last month in A study published last month in science examined 870 subnational regions across most of the African regions across most of the African continent in the ten months before and after USAID came to an abrupt stop using a difference in difference differences design, it compared places that have been heavily reliant on USAID with otherwise comparable places that had not before January 2025.

The trends in violent conflict in the two groups moved in step. After January 2025. They diverged sharply in the most exposed regions, the probability of a violent conflict events rose by roughly 6.5%. In some subnational analyses, conflict events and combat deaths rose by about 10%. This translates on the authors own conservative estimates into roughly a thousand additional deaths from armed violence in a single calendar year. And that is before we count the indirect mortality from collapsed clinics, interrupted food programs and displacements, all of which are estimated to lead than more than to more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of five.

Another study conducted by Jimmy Graham, Genocide and Atrocity Prevention Research Fellow at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, finds the same headline results. But he also notes that civilian unrest increased first, followed by armed violence, which suggests the increase in conflict was not just a coincidence, but rather a response to institutional weakening. Graham also argues that withdrawal of aid acts as a signal of short term state weakness. Rebels, militias and other armed actors infer with good reason that the state has just been deprived of a major source of administrative capacity, basic service delivery and economic stability, all of which gives them a window of opportunity.

My Lords, this evidence should concern us greatly because we too are embarking on significant further cuts to our aid budget. By next year, UK aid spending will fall to 0.3% of GNI. This will reduce aid spending to levels not seen proportionately since the late 1990s, and the value of total FCDO programmes will fall by 31% compared with 2020 526. Now, the government will tell the House that the share of bilateral aid going to fragile and conflict affected states is rising, and that is correct.

But it is rising against a sharply shrinking total, and the rise is achieved largely by protecting four countries Ukraine, Sudan, Palestine and Lebanon, while the other 34 fragile states share a much smaller pot. Bond's analysis finds that bilateral aid to Africa will have fallen by 56%, or £874 million, by 2829, compared with 2425 and the Integrated Security Fund, the principal instrument for stabilisation and peace building, has already been cut by a third in a single year.

And yet, at precisely this same moment, Ministers rightly tell us that the world is becoming more dangerous. As we've already heard, we face instability in Sudan, catastrophe in Gaza, conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, worsening food security across the Horn of Africa, and growing geopolitical competition in fragile states across the Balkans, the Sahel and the Indo-Pacific. If the world is indeed becoming more dangerous, this is surely the wrong moment to dismantle one of the principal instruments through which Britain has historically reduced instability peacefully.

So I ask the Minister, will the government set out a credible path back to 0.7%? The 2016 acts remain on the statute books. The commitment remains in the Prime Minister's own words, but a commitment with no timetable lacks resolution. And what steps is the government taking to ensure that, where bilateral programmes are being wound down, they are wound down in a sequenced way, strengthening local institutions, transferring capacity to domestic authorities and civil society, and giving partners reasonable notice so that the reduction in UK presence does not itself become a driver of instability.

My Lords, atrocity prevention requires more than public statements and diplomacy after violence has begun. It requires sustained investment in the conditions that make atrocities less likely in the first place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure to speak immediately after the right reverend Prelate and to share these benches support for his call to benches support for his call to reinstate the 0.74 overseas aid as soon as possible. And if the noble soon as possible. And if the noble Lord, the Minister is able to give any insights into that, that would be very welcome, because, my Lords, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, words are never enough. And we've heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lord Griffiths of Burry Port,
16:37
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
about dangers of democratic backsliding and other phenomena. So there are a range of issues that we there are a range of issues that we need to think about this evening. At the end of a very powerful At the end of a very powerful debate. And as always, I have to pay tribute to my noble friend, the pay tribute to my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We've already heard that Lord Rook already heard that Lord Rook aspires to be like Lord Alton.

He also, I think, wants to be perhaps a deputy bishop. Did the work presenting the words of the former Bishop of Truro and his report very effectively. But, my Lords, as many of you in this chamber will realise, one of the things to which you would have to aspire to be like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is to be utterly persistent, to ensure that whenever there's a scintilla of doubt or a scintilla of hope, that somebody might be willing to speak in a debate, you will keep coming and saying, could you just do this? Because he is so passionate for the causes which matter and the causes on which he speaks, where he brought today's debate and where he's introduced another private member's bill, are those always of the most profound importance, literally matters of life and death.

And there are issues on which we find it, I think, very easy to agree that we need to speak on the issue, but where across the chamber we may find many points of convergence. But so often there is one person or one group of people in the chamber who always seem to find it so very difficult to support what the noble Lord will have said, and what other noble Lords will have said in a debate.

So I'm hoping today that I might be proved wrong, that the government benches might actually be willing to say, you're right. The noble Lord Alton has brought such a compelling case, and his private member's bill is so important that we are going to give it a fair wind, because, my Lords, we've heard this afternoon about the difficulty that we have faced and which the other place has faced over the years when suggesting that maybe a case is one of genocide, that the response from the government frontbench is always very difficult case.

We agree there's a problem, but we can't name it as a genocide. That is, for the courts to decide. And the response of the courts is to say, we can't determine a genocide, because actually we need some legal basis on which to do that. Beyond the general international law norms. So, my Lords, I'm very much hoping that the Minister might be able to suggest he can be a little bit more open and that the government might welcome a very useful private member's bill that's on its way.

Never again. That was the they were the words with which I planned to open my speech. My noble friend Lord Hussain did so in his speech because they were the words immediately after World War Two and after the Holocaust that were proclaimed when we had the Convention on genocide and the words and the important contribution of Raphael Lemkin, mentioned by Lord Griffiths earlier, and the work of Hersch Lauterpacht on crimes against humanity, never again. And yet, 80 years on, we see so frequently cases that are clearly atrocity crimes.

And I'm very mindful of the words of the noble Lord Lord Hannay. He said. We do need to be careful about calling too many things genocide. Perhaps we use that word too casually, but it is important for us to be able to find a way as a country, and to be able to be reassured that the government is mindful of all of its duties under the Convention on Genocide, because it isn't simply about naming a genocide. It isn't just about punishing genocide.

If a court is eventually able to agree that a genocide has been perpetrated, it is also, as we've heard this afternoon, about preventing genocide. And that might sound a very large demand. It is, and I'm very grateful for a briefing. I was sent by Evelyn Ochab, who's already been mentioned by the noble Lord Lord Alton, in which there's a reminder that in 2007, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina versus Serbia and Montenegro, the judgement stated that the duty to prevent genocide is to be triggered when the state learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.

My Lords, even in the 1930s, if the word genocide had existed, people would have been able to see that there was a genocide of the Jewish people. And that was in days before mass media, mass communication, instantaneous communication. We now have many more opportunities to be aware of potential atrocities, crimes against humanity and genocide. So I would be grateful if this afternoon, the noble Lord, the Minister, could confirm whether he feels that the government does have all the tools that it needs to be able to be aware of genocides that may be being perpetrated, or whether there is a serious risk of genocide, because that is clearly a duty for this government and for our country.

Because, my Lords, we've heard from the first speech from Lord Alton onwards references to a whole series of cases where there are clearly crimes of crimes of atrocity, whether or not that genocide, they are crimes that need to be investigated and explored, whether in Sudan, whether the Uyghurs in China, the case of the Rohingyas and the situation in the Middle East, where there are allegations that clearly need to be looked into if there is nothing to see, then no, no crime will be found.

But at least there is a duty to explore cases where perhaps there may be genocide or crimes against humanity. But my Lords, one case that I'd like to touch on before I conclude is Afghanistan, because just under five years ago, NATO troops withdrew from Afghanistan. We had played a crucial role there. And when we left, we left behind many vulnerable people, women and girls who've been mentioned, members of the judiciary, for whom the noble Lady Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws did fantastic work.

But, my Lords, did fantastic work. But, my Lords, at the end of May we had saw 117, 117 days since there had been restraints on women's education, over 500 days since women have no longer been able to train as midwives in Afghanistan. And just on the 14th of May this year, the Taliban decreed, had a decree on the principles of separation between spouses and that Legalises child marriage establishes different standards of consent for minor girls and boys, and under the decree, a minor girl's silence is treated as consent to marriage.

A boy, at least, has explicitly to accept or reject such marriage, and there has been a decree that basically can take away the property of Afghans who are currently out of the country. Why might they be out of the country precisely because they've fled for their lives from the Taliban? My Lords, as a country, we still owe a duty to many Afghan refugees and those still in Afghanistan. What is His Majesty's Government doing to support them?
16:46
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. joining in the the paeans of praise to Lord Alton for all of his tireless campaigning. He is the tireless campaigning. He is the epitome of the phrase campaigning peer and as seen by his treatment of foreign governments, just by foreign governments. Just how effective his campaigning is. He has. He has really done some very important work that we are all in awe of him, and I look forward to working with him in the new session. On tackling some of the most appalling crimes committed by state actors, terror groups and others across the world.

My Lords, the official opposition is unequivocal. Atrocity crimes across the world should never go unpunished. The previous government, as my noble friend Baroness Sugg reminded us, took a number of steps to tackle war atrocities across the world, not least of which in Ukraine. Following the appalling crimes that have been committed in that conflict, including in Bucha. The images from there are impressed on all of our memories. My Lords and the victims of those crimes deserve justice. I'm very proud that the last government, working with our US and EU partners, established the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine.

That work is still ongoing and I know my noble friend Lady Prentis of Banbury, is continuing to play an active role in the efforts to bring the perpetrators of war crimes in that conflict to justice. We on this side of the House, will always back the government when it is supporting efforts to prosecute atrocities and genocide committed in other countries. Britain's values and principles of law are, I'm pleased to say, respected across the world. And from that flows respect and flows legitimacy.

It is surely right that we use our high reputation on justice as a force for good on the international stage. And given the important role that Britain has established over many years, we have a unique contribution to make in many parts of the world affected by instability, by terrorism and by war. In that context, let me ask the noble Lord to Minister to update the House on what is the government's current assessment of the terrible situation in Sudan. We were all appalled by the massacre at the Al-fashir Hospital.

The conflict in Sudan, as many others have said in this debate, has left hundreds of thousands of people dead and indeed millions affected by famine. The UK has long experience in supporting the prosecution of atrocities and war crimes perpetrated abroad. So, in addition to the diplomatic efforts made by the government to seek an end to the conflict, what steps are Ministers taking to ensure that the UK is able to support the prosecution of atrocities committed in that conflict? Another important point, also emphasised by my noble friend Baroness Sugg, is that we should never forget that atrocities are not just committed in conflict, as we have seen in Ukraine and Sudan.

There are sadly many states that are committing atrocities against their own people in the world today, and it would not be right for us to discuss those atrocities perpetrated by states. Without reflecting on China's treatment of the Uighur people in Xinjiang, and Baroness Helic did so effectively. The evidence is clear, and we must all be united in our condemnation of China's actions across this House. We all cherish our freedoms, and China appears to have no regard for the rights and freedoms of the Uyghur people, and we firmly support the noble Lord Lord Alton of Liverpool's campaign for justice.

Can the Minister reassure the House that the government will continue to hold the Chinese government to account for its persecution of the Uyghur people? And can he reassure the House that the government will work to ensure that our procurement processes are robust in prohibiting the purchase of the products of slave labour, however difficult they are to identify? And on Hong Kong, what is the government doing to monitor the Chinese state's action against Hong Kongers? We all want to see Jimmy Lai released.

So can the noble Lord. The Minister update the House on the representations that the government is making to the Chinese government for his release. At the same time, of course, it's also important to protect residents of Hong Kong who have come to the UK since China breached the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Could the noble Lord, the Minister, update the House on the steps that the government is taking to support those people in the UK? And finally, the evidence of massacres perpetrated by Iran against its own people is growing.

Now that the internet has been partly restored and the images of families seeking to identify their loved ones have been killed by the regime, which we saw earlier this year. And there's been some recent images released as well, are profoundly moving. Could the Minister say whether the government is taking steps to support, prepare the support, any evidence gathering in relation to these atrocities? And does he believe that there will be an opportunity in the future to hold the perpetrators to account in the coming years? Britain has an important role to play in championing the causes of tolerance, freedom, respect and justice across the world.

We cannot today discuss all areas of that conflict. Many have raised it, but many people are still suffering in an increasingly unstable world. But I support so many of the heartfelt sentiments that have been expressed across the House in our debate today. We must never waver in our ambition to stamp out hatred, discrimination, atrocities and genocide across the world. And where it does occur, we must not flinch in our efforts to deliver justice for the victims. I'm looking forward to hearing the noble Lords response, particularly how he justifies now the actions of the government compared to some of his previous statements.

So I look forward to his statements.
16:53
16:53
16:53
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
And, you know, he and I, I think, may not have always agreed on the means. But the one thing that we've means. But the one thing that we've been absolutely at one on is the ends that we want to see an end of this sort of behaviour. But there this sort of behaviour. But there is always going to be differences on the means. And sometimes, as the on the means. And sometimes, as the noble Lord, my friend Lord Ahmed has frequently said to me, his positions in government often change.

When he moved into opposition. Sometimes that happens in reverse. But can I just say that it has been an incredibly comprehensive debate, and it's going to be very difficult for me to cover every one of the issues that have been raised. But I know that we will study Hansard carefully, and if I fail to address any particular point, we will write and put a letter in the library. and put a letter in the library. Can I just say that? It is absolutely how we use the full weight of policy to prevent the gravest crimes known to humanity is one of the most is amongst the most serious responsibility of any government across the world.

We are witnessing now deeply troubling rising conflict and instability from Sudan to Ukraine, Gaza, Myanmar. The human cost is devastating, and in the face of such suffering, it is right that the House. This House to consider how government policy can respond more effectively, both to prevent these crimes and also to ensure accountability when they occur. My Lords, the UK government's approach rests on a clear principle that preventing and responding to atrocity crimes must be embedded across our foreign development and security policy.

This is not an isolated issue. It's integral to how we promote stability, uphold international law and protect human rights. Our policies are therefore designed to operate across three mutually reinforcing areas preventing atrocity risk from emerging or escalating, responding decisively where crimes occur or are imminent, and strengthening accountability and justice mechanisms to deter future violations. But before I address those three areas, I just want to remind the House that in the Human Rights Day in 2024, the government identified five key priorities that actually, I think, very much reflect how this debate has gone this afternoon.

The first priority was about defending civic space and fundamental freedoms. And by the way, I think one of the most and I think noble Lords have heard me say this, one of the most important ingredients of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society. It enables people to hold their governments to account. So this government is committed to support civil society organisations. The second priority again, noble Lords have raised this issue is the upholding of the rule of law, and we are committed to the institutions that promote the international rule of law, including the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the OSCE.

We need to build a broad alliances and to listen to the views of others. Even when we disagree. It matters that perpetrators of atrocities know that justice awaits them as noble Lord Lord Alton knows that. That's why we strongly support effective and independent ICC third priority is the champion to champion the equal rights for all. Stalling progress on the rights of women, girls, Lgbtq+ people and those belonging to other marginalised groups is troubling and it's increasing.

We must more than ever stand in solidarity with them, and we will advocate the rights and freedoms of women and girls at every opportunity. And this fundamentally includes sexual and reproductive health rights, which are very much under threat at this moment in time, and by championing the freedom of religion or belief for all, we are fighting back against the threats to so many people face for simply for what they do or do not believe in. And the UK's special envoy for FoRB, David Smith, my noble friend Lord rook, has mentioned him.

He launched his strategy last year, gave an excellent timetable for work, which actually did focus on article on recommendation seven of the report, and we are making progress. We will deliver on that. So I think the idea of of of David Smith meeting with Lords, I'm sure he will be open to that suggestion, and I will certainly convey that to him. And the fifth and final priority is to respond to the global challenges by prioritising human rights and governance principles, working to end all forms of modern slavery and promote business and human rights.

These things go together. I have strongly argued when I was Minister for Africa, every Africa country I went to said, well, if their first priority is economic growth, how do you deliver it? You deliver it with an inclusive workforce includes delivering on the rights of women. That's what we need to do. Can I just now turn to those three areas that I mentioned, that of course, the first is prevention. Preventing these crimes depends on early informed and coordinated actions. So government policy prioritises building a deep understanding of risk.

The UK undertakes undertakes rigorous cross-government analysis of conflict and instability, drawing on diplomatic reporting, expert insights and global data. This allows us to identify the drivers of violence, including political exclusion of specific groups of people, weak governance, identity based tensions or a history of impunity. Our global network of diplomatic missions play a vital role in this effort, and I've seen this across many continents. And we can actually sort of ensure colleagues on the ground, supported by specialist advisors and analysis, provide real time insights into emerging risks and help shape targeted responses.

And this ensures that our policy decisions are based on evidence and focussed on where they can have the greatest impact to prevent atrocities and to protect sensitive intelligence sources and prevent hostile actors from exploiting strategic vulnerabilities. Many of our assessments, including noble Lord Dear Lord Alton, mentioned my noble friend Baroness Kennedy mentioned the joint analysis of conflict and stability. These must remain confidential, and certainly both noble Lord Lord Alton and Bernice Kennedy knew. Last year.

I invited them in to talk about the review we were doing on the jacks process. And so I think that's been a very, very positive thing. And of course, prevention also means tackling the root causes of violence with a focus on areas where analysis identifies those at greatest risk. For example, we support peace building and reconciliation efforts in fragile and conflict affected regions, helping to address long standing grievances. We invest in strengthening institutions, promoting the rule of law and countering disinformation and hate speech.

We also work to advance gender equality and protect the rights of women and girls, recognising that gender based violence is not just abhorrent in its own right, but also a warning sign. A very big warning sign. A broader list of atrocities. And certainly we, through our contributions on multilateral mechanisms, including US UN peace building efforts, we are building that. Now, the noble Lady Baroness Helic raised PSV and gender based violence and sexual violence in conflict, and can I pay tribute to her for her excellent work and certainly I've been absolutely committed to ensure the PSV work that we've undertaken, and certainly we are making very good progress in terms of renewing our commitments beyond 26.

And we will we will do that. And she's right. We do need a replacement to the excellent previous special representative on PSV, and I'm very much hoping that that will be announced fairly shortly. But irrespective of that, the department is committed. In fact, I was in Costa Rica for the inauguration of the new president there, and I met representatives of the UN agencies where we were giving financial support to support the survivors of sexual violence in three countries in Latin America, and I was really impressed with the impact of that.

And of course, the key to that has been our absolute focus on a survivor centred approach, listening to the people who are most affected, responding to them and building that programme, and in relation to to, of course, I had the opportunity to go to Tigray and again, meet the survivors of sexual violence and understand what they wanted, not only in terms of ensuring accountability, but also how they can actually rebuild their lives and not suffer the stigma that is associated, because that's why people use sexual violence in conflict.

They know it has a stigmatising effect, and that's what we have to properly address. My Lords, the second area is how we respond, how we respond, which is and must be decisive, where risks escalate and atrocities

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To occur. The government acts swiftly and in coordination with partners the US. The UK uses diplomatic channels to raise concerns directly with states and concerns directly with states and to press for de-escalation, and we work through international institutions, including the UN, to institutions, including the UN, to raise the alarm, build consensus and action. And of course, this includes the Human Rights Council, includes the Human Rights Council, where, for example, our human rights ambassador raise the UK's deep concern as many noble Lords have raised around the situation in Xinjiang.

On the 16th of March, we have repeatedly used the Human Rights Council because we can win votes there. By the way, beyond simply the Security Council. And I accept what people are saying in relation to the situation in the Security Council. Can I just say that, you know, in relation to. Many noble Lords have raised Sudan, the UK's commitment to atrocity prevention in Sudan is unequivocal and long standing, and we consistently monitor emerging risks, press the parties to the conflict for restraint and urge compliance with international humanitarian law.

The Foreign Secretary has made it also a priority. We have to try and absolutely focus on this issue to ensure that it's not pushed down the global agenda. We know it has, and the UK is a leader of the core group on Sudan that the UN Human Rights Council led efforts to renew the UN fact finding mission mandate in October. The only UN mechanism investigating violations across Sudan. And this year we supported the deployment of specialist sexual the deployment of specialist sexual and.

Sexual gender based violence investigators to strengthen the accountability, specifically on conflict related sexual violence, so we can hold those perpetrators to account. And certainly on the 6th of May, the Atrocity Prevention Coalition issued a joint statement calling out the risk of escalation in around dealing in South Kordofan, pressing the warring parties to guarantee unimpeded access. But I know these are words and these are dreadful situation in Sudan, but we must must make sure that it doesn't go down the global agenda.

Can I just also say, on accountability, a central pillar of government policy is supporting international efforts to ensure those responsible for atrocity crimes are held accountable. And this is clear in Ukraine, where we have played a leading role in supporting the Ukraine government, document crimes and pursue. Document crimes and pursue justice, including through cooperation with international partners and others, and certainly in in Myanmar, where the British Embassy in Yangon is at the forefront of efforts to address the culture of impunity that is fuelling cycles of violence.

As my noble friend Baroness Nye has mentioned, achieving justice can be challenging. Too often the path is long and difficult. One, and certainly I know that's the case in relation to Lord Wigley thing. And you know, I just want to reassure him that it's not that we don't think there is accountability. But, you know, when crimes are committed, it's vital that we have the opportunity or support the opportunity of gathering evidence. You cannot pursue a trial without proper evidence.

And that's a key element of our work. And I'm not dismissing in any way the the nature of these crimes, but it is if we're to hold people accountable, it is that system that is really important. I think it was an Overlord Lord Alton that asked about the Gambia case in relation to Myanmar, and I from what I understand, in March 25th, the UK submitted a written observations to the ICJ in the case brought by Gambia for alleged breaches of the Genocide Convention.

The UK's intervention presented legal arguments regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the Genocide Convention. We have trusted that this will help the court when considering these provisions. The Gambia versus Myanmar proceedings have now moved beyond the oral hearings on the merits, which concluded in January of this year, and we are now into the court's deliberative phase. It remains the United Kingdom's position that a determination of genocide should be made by the competent court or tribunal, and we welcome the ICJ's consideration of the issues in relation to Myanmar's obligations under the convention.

However, in relation to the status of the arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing, that is a matter for the court, which is independent and we would not interfere with its processes. My Lords, I think that Baroness Sugg raised this. It's important that we emphasise that, no, no country can address these issues and these challenges alone. It is how we work with others that is vital, and that's why our actions are grounded in multilateral cooperation. We work closely with partners and share information, and we're determined through, you know, whether it's returning from conflicts in Syria or Iraq.

We must expect to be met at the UK border by counter-terrorism policing, interviewed and, where relevant, investigated, determined to whether they have committed criminal offences. I'm going to run out of time and I do want to address some fundamental issues, and I acknowledge what Baroness Finlay said about organ harvesting. We know, I mean, these are things that are happening without public knowledge. They're atrocities that we need to address. And the noble Lord Lord Hannay also raised UN processes, and particularly on the UN vote veto.

And the UN, UK government was proud to co-sponsor the veto initiative that enables the UN General Assembly to scrutinise the use of veto. We support the accountability, coherence and transparency Code of conduct through which we have committed not to vote against a credible draft resolution to prevent or end mass atrocity in the UN General Assembly. Can I just conclude by saying that the role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes is profound and far reaching, and I know what the noble Lord Lord Alton has said about his genocide bill, and he knows my response.

We won't be supporting it. But that does not mean because actually, one of the key elements of this and by the way, this is why we share the same ends, atrocity and crimes. People need to be held accountable. We need to ensure that we have the means to do that. I want to put the sort of effort that we've been doing successfully in supporting all those agencies which are gathering the necessary evidence, and where that evidence has been able to present to a competent court, we will do our utmost to support it.

But I do know that, you know, I am determined, and I think the government is determined that we raise these issues, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for having this debate and for putting his bill forward for consideration, because I'm going to be really interested. Oh, he's gone now. But I wanted to hear Lord Ahmed's response. But he's obviously escaped in time. But anyway, my Lords, I'm grateful for the noble Lord. I'm grateful for him initiating this debate.

It's been incredibly broad ranging, but very, very important for the future of mankind and womankind.
17:13
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm greatly encouraged to have. >> Heard our house speak so powerfully, so eloquently, and with such a united voice about our determination to tackle atrocity crimes in whatever vestige they may come, whether it's outright genocide, whether it's crimes against humanity, whether it's war crimes. I was obviously disappointed to hear the final remarks of the noble Lord Lord Collins of Highbury, though he and I, as he said, want to see the same end. But I was disappointed to hear him say that he is unable at the present moment to support the Genocide Determination Bill.

But he's heard the opposition front benches and I was extremely grateful to the. To my noble friend Baroness Smith of Newnham, to the noble Lord Lord Callanan, for what they had to say and for the support that the bill has been given, particularly by people like Baroness Helic and, of course, Baroness Sugg in their remarks today, there will be a debate about that bill on July the 15th. We are in continued discussion. My noble friend Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws and I have met with Lord Hermer, the Attorney General.

We have got questions to the Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, around this and universal jurisdiction, and I hope the conversation, therefore will remain open because we can't have it both ways. We can't say, as the noble Lord colonies did in his last remarks, that we will abide by the determination of a court if we then rule out the opportunity of the High Court of England and Wales, or the Court of Sessions in Scotland actually being able to do that, which is why the noble and learned Lord Morrow noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead helped to devise the terms of that bill.

So I do hope that given that the vetoes that we heard referred to by my noble friend Lord Hannay will always be used by Russia or China. When you seek to refer a situation such as the Uyghur Muslims case or even the United Nations own Commission of Inquiry into North Korea, which called for referral to the ICC, it hasn't gone forward because of the threat of the use of veto. My noble friend was right that the United Kingdom should revisit this question, even if only to call out those countries that would block such referrals.

The French actually floated this idea some time ago. We should work with them to try and make sure it is placed before the Security Council, something I know it would be close to the heart of the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Saag, said we needed clarity, resources and urgency. The point about resources was underlined by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester. It takes me back to my student union days when I argued for resolution 2626, the United Nations resolution calling for 0.7% of our gross national product to be provided in development aid, the noble Lady Baroness Sugg has an incredibly honourable record on this.

Not many people leave government over a matter of principle. I enormously admire her for putting her beliefs into action in that way. But she is right. We must understand what impact this is having on things like the atrocity prevention strategy. And I hope, therefore, that when the letter comes from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that something more can be said about whether this impact of resources will affect capacity and the size of the hub. Many peers echoed the call for a cross-departmental cross-government strategy, a point made by the noble Baroness Goudie and and others.

A core question, we were told it is. Many lamented the absence of that national strategy. The scale of the challenge was underlined by Lady Helic, by Baroness Nye, by my noble friend Baroness D'Souza, the noble Lord Lord Griffiths of Burry Port and others. The revivification of the conventions was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths made, but also echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and her latter park, but also Raphael Lemkin, were called in aid. I had the privilege of visiting similarly in northern Iraq, which is where Lemkin went in the early 1930s to understand what had happened to the Assyrians and Armenians.

And it was on that basis that he started to think about crafting something to try and deal with atrocity crimes. More than 40 of his own family were murdered in the Holocaust. Churchill said there is no word sufficient in our language to capture the scale, the monstrosity of the crimes that have been committed. Lemkin gave us that word genocide, the cutting of the human family, and in every generation we owe it to the founding fathers and mothers of that period, everyone from Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Winston Churchill and many senior figures from the Conservative and Labour parties at that time who promoted the European Convention on the on Human Rights, in which the noble Lord Lord Darroch spoke.

When I had a debate on that subject, I will only say that it's a great pleasure for me to be able to pass the baton on to the noble Lord Lord Rook, who I think has more than grown into his own shoes, and I'm particularly pleased that he's joined us on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where he's already making quite a mark. My Lords, in the 1930s we saw, as Baroness Smith said, the growth of crimes that nobody responded to in any adequate way.

There was insufficient justice or accountability. People were not listening to the survivors or the victims. My noble friend Lord Wigley gave us a particular case, that of Ryan Evans, who paid the ultimate price in the Ukraine for shining a light on the atrocities there. I mentioned earlier on in my opening remarks that I heard Kate Adie earlier today at the unveiling of the statue of Tank Man, where she said that the protesters in the square in Tiananmen said to her, please go and tell the world.

And that's what so many of our brave journalists have done down the years they've gone and told the world at great risk to their own lives. We surely have to underline, as my friend Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws told us, that we have to underline that atrocities flourish in darkness, and we do have to shine a light on those things. The noble Lord Lord Hussain said that early warning is useless without early action. The noble Lord Rook said the true test is in implementation, and Baroness Kennedy said we need something like the Elie Wiesel Act in our own country here.

This is the beginning of a conversation. We can continue it, I think on July the 17th on my private member's bill, but I think it is also a conversation to have within your Lordships House, perhaps with the special envoy, David Smith, member of Parliament, who's been referred to, with whom I travelled once to India, and I have a very high regard for him. But it would be good to to have officials from the FCDO present at a meeting with those who have taken part in this debate, where we can discuss more candidly and perhaps with one another some of the issues that I know unite us.

I'll end by saying that I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was given the task of replying to today's debate. We've missed his voice often in this House on these issues. No one cares more deeply about it than he does. I'm grateful to him and to all the members of your Lordships House have taken

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part in today's debate. I beg. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I. Nicholas I. Nicholas Baron I. Nicholas Baron Clancarty I. Nicholas Baron Clancarty of the hangars, do solemnly, sincerely, the hangars, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King allegiance to his Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I beg I beg to I beg to move I beg to move the I beg to move the house. I beg to move the house. Do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the house. Do now adjourn.
10:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Government policy on temporary skilled worker visas for creative occupations Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page