Atrocity Crimes

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate and thank all noble Lords who have spoken in it. The contributions have been extremely thoughtful, especially from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who reminds us that these things do not always happen on the other side of the world; they are closer to home and more prevalent.

We cannot continue to think of atrocity crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing —as rare events. They are increasingly at the heart of today’s most difficult foreign policy crises, from Sudan to Myanmar, and from Gaza to Ukraine. Identity-based violence has become a weapon of choice for authoritarians and extremists, yet our systems for understanding and preventing such crimes have not kept pace.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s recent report on Sudan made the situation painfully clear. It revealed that, despite clear warnings, the Government have

“opted to take the least ambitious approach to the prevention of atrocities”.

That should trouble us all. When a system fails to generate bold, timely policy options, Ministers are left unable to act with the agency such crises demand. So I ask the Minister: what lessons have been taken from Sudan and how can the Government’s approach change to ensure that early risk analysis now triggers early preventive action?

This matters all the more now, as the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s internal restructuring appears to be placing the very capability to evaluate atrocity risks at risk itself. This is not simply a reshuffling of desks; it has real implications for our ability to detect, analyse and respond to mass violence. Can the Minister show the House that atrocity prevention expertise will be safeguarded and not decreased in this process?

Finally, the whistleblower’s account that references to a possible “genocide” in Sudan were removed from internal risk assessments should prompt the most serious reflection. If officials feel unable to use the very term that describes the gravest of crimes, when the evidence points clearly in that direction, then we must confront why crucial analysis is not guiding timely action. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons to learn from Sudan must be to strengthen the channels of honesty and accountability?

Watching and documenting atrocities is not enough. Prevention demands more than observation; it requires analysis to drive decisive action, backed by systems and structures strong enough to ensure accountability. Without such commitments, our ability to protect vulnerable populations and uphold our moral responsibilities will always fall short.