My Lords, it is my honour to introduce the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report, Accountability for Daesh Crimes; it is the JCHR’s second report of the 2024-25 Session, which started last December. In this work, our committee held six oral evidence sessions and heard from expert witnesses and independent officials, including the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; SO15, the counterterrorism unit of the Met Police; and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Before I proceed with introducing the report, I should pay my respects to the exceptional chair of our committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He is unable to be in the Room today as he is recovering from a serious accident that took place at Victoria Station last week—it was a collision involving a bus on which he was travelling—which has caused him some serious damage. He will probably be out of the Chamber for six to eight weeks, so I am standing in his place; I cannot do him justice, but I know that we all want to see him recover from that terrible accident.
The case of the Yazidi genocide has been close to the noble Lord’s heart—and, indeed, to mine—from the early days of the Daesh genocidal campaign. Like me, the noble Lord has visited the Yazidi camps and got to know many of the Yazidi community in the years since. He did not give up on the case, despite very poor responses from successive Governments.
Let me explain something of the background. Daesh, which is also known as Islamic State, ISIL or ISIS, is a non-state terrorist organisation that emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq in the early 2000s; if anything told us that the Iraq war was a folly, those repercussions point out very clearly that it was. Daesh has targeted religious minorities, such as the Yazidis, with the intention of destroying diverse ethno-religious identities. Women and girls have been specifically targeted and subjected to abductions, forced conversions, forced marriage, rape and sexual violence.
One of the horrors is that, at first, their own community was reluctant to have young women who had been violated over and over again returned to it. Eventually, its religious leadership took a different position and the women could be returned—but not with any of the babies they had conceived. So one of the sadnesses is that I have met girls who were only 14 or 15 when they were impregnated. They left behind babies whom they loved because they also wanted to return to their parents. It was absolutely heart-rending to be confronted with that.
It is estimated that 5,000 Yazidis were killed, while more than 200,000 were displaced from their homes. Some 2,500 to 2,700 were abducted and remain missing; we do not know where they are. In 2023, the UK Government acknowledged that acts of genocide were committed against the Yazidi people by Daesh. Earlier today, a number of Yazidi survivors visited this House. They have been closely following this inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights because they want answers as to why British Daesh fighters have not been prosecuted for their involvement in international crimes against the Yazidis, which, as I said, His Majesty’s Government finally recognised as a genocide in August 2023.
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, as we do week after week in the operation of the Select Committee.
I have been in touch with our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He said to me that he was particularly moved by a visit he made in 2019 to Sinjar in northern Iraq, where he had harrowing meetings with Yazidi survivors. I know that his motivation to renew the Select Committee’s investigation into the crimes committed by Daesh in the previous Parliament in this Parliament was motivated by that experience. I also know that the noble Lord is very fed up not to be here; he has invested a great deal in this topic. Indeed, there is some considerable irony that one of the most sanctioned men in Parliament for his campaigning on human rights issues should be laid low by a number 24 bus. However, as the noble Baroness rightly observed, we hope that he will shortly be back to chair the committee.
I must also thank the committee’s staff for their help with the inquiry, which was long running—as I said, it started in the previous Parliament—and for preparing the evidence sessions, which were not straightforward, given the difficult nature of the evidence that we heard.
I shall make just three points. First, it is shocking that there have been no prosecutions against any Britons for the terrible crimes committed by Daesh in northern Syria and Iraq. It is true that these ghastly crimes need to be investigated and charged appropriately. As the noble Baroness observed, there is a suggestion that of the 400 or so who have returned, 32 have been tried, and they have been tried for terrorism offences rather than for any international offences. One can see why that might be done in that it is easier, and the evidence is available in the UK; we heard evidence about that. However, to do so seems to undermine the gravity of the crimes that they committed. I understand the difficulty and expense of collecting evidence in Iraq, but it is important that these crimes are properly investigated and charged.
My Lords, I was devastated to see the injuries that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has suffered—he sent me a photograph. I send him my very best for a swift recovery. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for stepping in and introducing this debate.
If I am a Daesh fighter who engaged in the massacre of the Yazidis between 2014 and 2017, if I am successful in making my way to Europe, I will not go to Germany or Holland, where I might be prosecuted for genocide—I will take a small boat to Dover and seek safety in the United Kingdom, where, under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, only UK nationals and residents can be prosecuted for genocide or a crime against humanity and war crimes outside of this jurisdiction.
When the then Bill was before Parliament in 2001, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, argued:
“The primary responsibility for the investigation of crimes committed outside the United Kingdom lies with the state where the crime occurred, or whose nationals were responsible. If that state is not able or willing to investigate, the ICC will … step in”.
There are 125 signatories to the Rome statute, which set up the International Criminal Court. They do not include Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey or Lebanon. Rather forlornly, from that area, they include just the state of Palestine and neighbouring Jordan. In other words, in almost all areas of the Middle East, the writ of the International Criminal Court simply does not run.
At that time, the noble and learned Baroness also said:
“The British criminal justice system is based on a territorial link to the United Kingdom … we have to be practical and ensure that we can deliver what we undertake. It is our policy to assume universal jurisdiction only where an international agreement expressly requires it. The Rome statute does not. Rather than taking jurisdiction that will be difficult to enforce, we believe that those countries in which the offences took place should be encouraged to prosecute”.—[Official Report, 15/1/01; col. 929.]
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Joint Committee on Human Rights on its detailed and courageous report, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on bringing this debate. With others, I am sorry that he cannot be with us today. I, too, received the graphic photographs of his serious injuries.
The memory of the horrific crimes of Daesh, including genocide, is now fading from public consciousness. There have been so many challenging situations in the world in the past decade. However, the report makes clear that there is substantial unfinished business in respect of Daesh and the perpetrators. It has to be of widespread public concern that so few of the British citizens who perpetrated these atrocities have been brought to justice. I recognise the complexities of seeking to hold them to account before the law, as noble Lords have articulated, but the UK Government’s engagement does not compare well with prosecutions brought by other Governments and jurisdictions. I hope the Government and the new Foreign Secretary will be able to act on the clear recommendations in the report. We collectively need to find more effective ways of being alert to the risks of genocide, and responding to past offenders and bringing them to justice must be a key part of that.
Reading the report, I was particularly struck by the plight of the significant numbers of children who are detained with their parents in refugee camps in north-east Syria. The report identifies the serious risks to these children caused by the poor living conditions, as well as the risks of trafficking and radicalisation. We clearly have insufficient information about these forgotten children—their numbers, their whereabouts and the risks to them—but they are UK nationals, and they are surely innocent of any crime their parents have committed. Their plight is ongoing, and they deserve our attention and care.
Better information is a key next step here, so will the Government take steps to publish updated data on the number of Britons estimated to be detained in north-east Syria, with information disaggregated by age and gender, if that information is available? I ask the Minister: will the Government now support the call for more urgent fact-finding about the numbers and plight of these children? Will the Government be able to support more proactive attempts to repatriate these children, alongside continuing to seek to bring those who perpetuated the Daesh crimes to justice? What resources and energy are the Government prepared to commit to the task in the coming year?
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate, with whom I share non-lawyer status—perhaps the only two here. This excellent report has had a somewhat chequered history, interrupted as it was by the election last year, but it has emerged stronger with new and compelling evidence.
The purposes of the JCHR inquiry were to assess the UK’s compliance with its obligations to punish genocide, to protect children from trafficking and to support British nationals, including children, in the Syrian camps. My concern is also with the first purpose—the shortcomings in the UK of the legal framework governing international crimes and challenges to accountability. As noble Lords know well, the UK is a signatory to the Geneva conventions and has a legal obligation to prevent genocide, where possible, and to punish perpetrators. The fact of genocide by Daesh against the Yazidi people is indisputable and summarised comprehensively in the report. The UK Government’s response so far rejects the main recommendations in the report, which are focused on strengthening the prevention and punishment of genocide.
To summarise the evidence of the UK’s failure to comply fully with treaty obligations: the UK has never prosecuted or convicted anyone for the crime of genocide. In this, the UK law is inconsistent. As we have heard, an individual guilty of genocidal action, and who happens to be in the UK, cannot be arrested unless the individual is a UK citizen or resident. Furthermore, the Government can—and they do—offer temporary immunity to foreign nationals implicated in genocide who visit the UK.
Also as we have heard, approximately 425 Daesh fighters have returned to the UK, of which 32 have been convicted under the terrorism-related legal framework, but none has been charged with or convicted of the international crime of genocide, despite the fact that the UK Government have formally accepted that Daesh’s action against the Yazidis constitutes genocide. Currently, UK domestic law provides only limited jurisdiction on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is worth repeating that the courts can prosecute only offences committed by UK nationals or residents or those subject to service personnel jurisdiction.
My Lords, as the final Back-Bench speaker, I echo all noble Lords who have wished the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a speedy recovery. He is, for so many of us, the outstanding example of a successful campaigning Cross-Bench Peer. I look forward to his speedy return.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been doing some important and visionary things in recent years, this report included. I thank it for its work, and will touch on citizenship deprivation, terrorism prosecutions and the prosecution of international crimes.
First, on deprivation of citizenship, I was delighted to see the strong recommendations regarding both transparency and oversight. They reflect recommendations made by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, and indeed by me when I occupied that post. In their response, the Government point out quite correctly that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published independent reviews of the deprivation power in 2018 and 2024. Successive chief inspectors have done an excellent job and I hold them in high regard.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, will forgive me when I say that, having read the chief inspectors’ reports, I am less easily satisfied than him. The purpose of those inspections, in the words of the 2018 report, was only to examine
“the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office’s processes”.
Even that procedural examination had its limits. The 2024 inspection looked only at the Status Review Unit, which deals with deprivations prompted by fraud or related to serious organised crime. What were described as
“‘conducive cases’ where sensitive intelligence is relied upon to make a decision”
are handled by the Special Cases Unit and were said to be out of scope. Those cases, of course, are relevant here, so I cannot agree with the Government that existing independent oversight is sufficient.
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for opening the debate. Like other Members, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, a very swift recovery. I was delighted to see that he has managed to record and document his injuries in the thorough way that we would expect from him. We all hope that we will see him back at the peak of his powers as soon as possible.
We all remember the reports, a couple of years ago, from Iraq and Syria of the appalling crimes when Daesh was at its peak: the beheadings of British humanitarian aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and the American aid worker Peter Kassig; the mass murder, which has been referred to, of well over 1,000 Shia Muslim Iraqi cadets at Camp Speicher; the genocide against the Yazidis, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, discussed; and women and girls being subjected to abductions, forced conversions, forced marriage, rape and sexual violence. They really were appalling crimes—and made worse by the way they were documented and videoed, so that those who had a particularly strong stomach could watch them all online. There was a kind of unreal, appalling atrocity to them. You read about them, but nothing can quite inure you to watching them online. I watched a couple and had nightmares afterwards, so I could not watch any more after that.
In the context of all those crimes, this report is both timely and sobering. I am sure the whole Committee is united on the basic truth that the rule of law must be upheld, and the Government have a responsibility to ensure that justice is done. This is a detailed report, which touches on a wide range of questions relating to domestic law, international law and the fundamental security of our country. We on these Benches, as we did when we were in power, believe that Ministers must put the security of the British people first and foremost. The Joint Committee is right to welcome the Government’s commitment to achieve justice for survivors of Daesh crimes. It is concerning, as a number of noble Lords have said, that, of all those Daesh fighters who have returned to the UK, none has been successfully prosecuted in the UK for these appalling crimes, such as the genocide that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to.
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who contributed to this short but informative and detailed debate.
As every other noble Lord has done, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his incredible work in chairing the committee and producing this report, as well as his wider work with and the representations he has made for many oppressed communities throughout the world, in this case the Yazidi community. He contacted me, as he probably did every noble Lord in this Room, and I have evidence of his injuries too. He wrote very movingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, said, of his trip to Sinjar and how it fundamentally affected him. He also said to me that he was fed up about not being here today but that, in his encounter with the No. 24, the bus came off worse. I think all noble Lords will be unsurprised at his assessment of whether a mere motor vehicle can stop his commitment to carrying out duties in this House and elsewhere.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who has proven a more than able stand-in for the noble Lord in presenting the report to the Committee and making the case. As she said, we have all heard testimony that is heart-rending in different ways. I was struck by the way she focused on the terrible crimes not just against women and children but particularly against young girls, and the way that that has impacted their lives from a very early age. As a parent of two teenage daughters, the impact that has on those girls’ lives is truly terrible to think about.
As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, this report from the Joint Committee is timely and sobering. I thank it for its continued commitment to this most worthy of causes. Justice must be done and those guilty of carrying out Daesh’s crimes must be held to account. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, there is a real danger of the crimes against the Yazidis diminishing in our collective memory. Having spent a lot of time over a number of years in and around Holocaust education—not to make a direct comparison—I know the importance of continued testimony and awareness of the awful crimes such as those visited against the Yazidis, and it is essential that we do not forget. The importance of getting justice for the Yazidis in the round is not simply about the nuts and bolts of the legal process—it is also about the wider understanding of what happened to that community—though that is not to say that the issues around legal process here and in Iraq and Syria, which the report raises, are not terribly important. I will make some attempt to respond to the points raised.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he heard what I had to say about the independent chief inspector. As I understand his reports—and I have read both of those just referred to—they are limited to the processes applied by the Home Office, and the more recent one deliberately declared out of scope conducive deprivations based on sensitive intelligence. It dealt only with the much more routine deprivations of citizenship obtained by fraud and a few deprivations in connection with serious organised crime. I am just having a little difficulty understanding how the Minister can say that this oversight is in any way comparable to the sort of oversight that the independent reviewer provides of the remaining parts of the counterterrorism arsenal.
20 of 27 shown
It is interesting that the German criminal courts have pronounced three judgments on genocide by members of Daesh in dealing with crimes against the Yazidi people. Yazidis are very much like the Jewish community in that, over decades and centuries, they have been discriminated against, subjected to persecution, called infidels and suffered other abuses. As the community tells us, they have endured 74 genocides, and the 2014 genocide by Daesh is in some ways ongoing because of those missing people. We wonder where so many of those women have gone. Are they still in households run by those men and their wives? Many of the women were themselves abusers of their victims.
This was also the genocide that some 900 British citizens joined. They left their lives in Britain behind and travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Daesh, and they may well have taken part in genocidal activities against the Yazidis and other religious minorities. Some 425 jihadist volunteers are now back in the United Kingdom. Before this inquiry took place, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I met the contingent of the police that deals with war crimes or international atrocity crimes. It became clear that there had never been proper inquiries into the domestic circumstances of those who returned, whether they ever interacted with the Yazidi community and so on.
His Majesty’s Government responded to a Parliamentary Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that:
“Over 32 individuals have been convicted of terrorism offences in British courts after previously travelling to the Iraq/Syria theatre of conflict as Daesh fighters”.
Just think about it: 32 convictions out of more than 400 who returned to the UK. That was for terror-related offences only, not their involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. This response was the very reason why Yazidi organisations and experts wrote to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and have been writing to people like me and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeking our views. They want to know why this has been the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is the chair of the Joint Committee which continued the inquiry and published its findings shortly before recess. His Majesty’s Government have now responded to the findings and recommendations, and I wish to engage with the responses. None of the people who have returned have been convicted for the international crimes committed by Daesh in Syria and Iraq. This means that there have been no successful prosecutions of Daesh fighters in this country for any of those crimes that I have mentioned—genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The focus of the police and the CPS has been on prosecuting terrorism offences. The report calls for a fundamental change in approach to focus on international crimes such as genocide and war crimes. Otherwise, for what purpose do we sign these treaties? Jonathan Hall, King’s Counsel, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
“I detected that the approach of counterterrorism police … was much more about risk management and much less about accountability”.
That is the purpose of legislation on war crimes, crimes against humanity and atrocity crimes such as genocide. The police are not really familiar with war crimes. The unit is just not trained to ask the right questions. Its approach is to ask, if this person might return, how to investigate them and potentially get a conviction under terrorism legislation and make sure that the UK is safe. It is important for them to do that, but there are other avenues that should have been explored.
The International Criminal Court came into existence only in 2000. We introduced it into domestic legislation through the International Criminal Court Act 2001, but only British nationals or British residents can be prosecuted under that legislation for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. In our courts, it is limited to people who are British. As it turns out, most of those people are British and were born here, but it is very limiting. Other countries do not have such limited legislation. Even the United States, which started in the same way as us by prosecuting only people who are American nationals or who are residing in the United States, realised that that limited it because people often come to countries as visitors or find their way in, and that is the very moment when they should be charged for the crimes that they may have committed.
Ms Amal Clooney, a colleague in my chambers, gave evidence to the committee. She said that the current limits of the UK legal framework create
“a key barrier to the exercise of universal jurisdiction”.
She noted:
“The UK’s legal framework deviates from that of both civil law jurisdictions in Europe, such as Germany, and other common law jurisdictions around the world”.
We should be thinking about our current position.
The report calls on the Government to allow the UK to exercise universal jurisdiction over these crimes. This would mean that anyone who could be prosecuted in UK courts for these international crimes should be. Amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill were proposed in the report to achieve this.
Unfortunately, the responses received from His Majesty’s Government’s so far are not very encouraging. Their response in saying that prosecutions require strong evidence was correct—they do. However, they failed to use UNITAD’s evidence. UNITAD is the investigative body that was gathering evidence in Iraq and Syria about the crimes committed by Daesh. We invested millions of taxpayers’ money in contributing towards that UN mechanism, yet we failed to access it to see if there was evidence that could be used against those British returnees who were convicted only of belonging to a terrorist organisation and joining it abroad.
His Majesty’s Government also responded that investigations and prosecutions should take place close to where the crimes occurred, meaning that Iraq should be prosecuting people for these crimes. If you were to count on your hands how many rape prosecutions take place in Iraq, you will find that there are very few. A much easier way is that you have somebody in custody who is a member of Daesh. If it can be shown that they were a member, that very membership can bring down the death penalty. So, you do not bother with securing justice for the Yazidi women who were raped over and over again, and sold and resold, and treated as chattels.
Iraq and Syria have not been places where judicial systems were likely to deliver justice—certainly not for the women. Concerns raised there in relation to the right to a fair trial and weak processes, among others, continue. To this day, these countries do not have legislation that would enable them to prosecute Daesh fighters for international crimes, such as the ones I have mentioned—genocide, torture and so on.
His Majesty’s Government mentioned that the ICC is better equipped to prosecute international crimes. That is in many ways true but not for Daesh crimes, as the ICC does not have territorial jurisdiction over the territories of Syria and Iraq, where most of the crimes were perpetrated.
The very premise of the principle of universal jurisdiction is that international crimes cannot be effectively prosecuted in some countries because of ongoing conflict, involvement or complicity of those in power, which is so often the case, lack of laws, a weak judiciary, corruption and so on.
His Majesty’s Government did not accept the Joint Committee’s assessment of the lack of co-operation between UK investigative and external prosecuting bodies. Indeed, even our own domestic investigative and prosecuting bodies did not seem to be connected regarding the kind of questioning that could have taken place. It could have been, “What were your domestic arrangements while you were living in Iraq? Where were you living? Who made up your household?” You do not start by saying, “Did you rape women?” You start by finding out how people were conducting their lives when they went home at night having beheaded so many people.
His Majesty’s Government identified some developments in co-operation with international mechanisms. However, there was no working relationship with UNITAD for the entire time the mechanism was in existence. UNITAD has now been parcelled up and handed over to UN offices in the United States and it looks as though it is folding. We still do not know the reason why there was no co-operation between the British authorities and UNITAD. The response from the Government is unclear on how they work with the IIIM, which is the mechanism for investigating the crimes that took place during the Daesh interlude in Iraq and Syria. How is evidence collected by the mechanism and could any of it have applied to British citizens who joined this jihad?
I was disappointed to see that His Majesty’s Government did not welcome the recommendation on universal jurisdiction, which is the clearest thing. People from Iran, for example, come to this country not wearing elaborate, theocratic outfits that say, “I am part of the revolutionary guard” or whatever, but they arrive here suited and booted to take their children to look at our universities to see whether they should study here. They come in, but we are not able to arrest them, even if they have been identified as members of the revolutionary guard, people who have perpetrated torture and so on. That is true of others who have committed grievous crimes: if they are not residents or do not have a British passport, nothing can be done.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has twice issued the recommendation that we should revisit our universal jurisdiction law. It is there in the Daesh inquiry report, and it is in the Crime and Policing Bill report that we prepared. That recommendation was also supported in the International Development Committee report. The Government’s argument is that,
“the question of whether universal jurisdiction should apply to a particular crime is best approached collaboratively between states through treaties”.
Treaties are all fine and good, but they have to be translated into law and then into practice. There are existing treaties that impose obligations upon the UK to ensure that international crimes are criminalised and that the perpetrators are punished. This one seems to have slipped through the net; it leaves out anyone who is not a UK citizen or resident, so significantly limits our Government’s ability to deal with international crimes effectively.
Further, the report engages with the issue of deprivation of citizenship and Britons in the camps in north-east Syria, which I will also briefly cover. The inquiry found that the UK Government have, in some circumstances, stripped individuals of their citizenship. Katherine Cornett from Reprieve told the committee that
“there is a serious lack of transparency when it comes to the use of this power… The UK now uses this power more than almost any other state… Because of the lack of information, there is no demographic data about who has been stripped of their citizenship and about their gender, ethnic background or religion”.
The report calls for greater transparency over this power and how it is used. It also calls for periodic independent reviews of the use of the power.
I will just deal with the Britons who are in those camps. We saw a film by a very brave war correspondent from Sky News, which showed her interviewing a British person through the gates of a prison. It was obvious that he was British from his speech and so on, and I think he indicated that he was indeed British. So there is somebody in there, and we should be making inquiries about whether he should be brought here and put on trial.
The inquiry established that UK nationals are currently detained in camps in Syria. They are essentially open-air prisons with appalling conditions; there is a lack of food and medical assistance, and threats of violence are commonplace. The UN special rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, Siobhán Mullally, said:
“The particular risks faced by children … must be urgently addressed and without further delay”.
They are at risk of serious abuse and of possible trafficking onwards for questionable purposes. She continued:
“Repatriation of families currently detained indefinitely in north-east Syria is a necessary first step to meeting the UK’s domestic and international law obligations of protection, effective investigation and provision of effective remedies for the serious human rights violations ongoing”.
The report calls for a proactive approach in identifying and locating minors and, where feasible, repatriating them as soon as practically possible. It also calls on the Government to undertake every effort to prosecute British individuals held in camps in Syria where there is evidence that they were involved in grievous crimes. The Daesh inquiry was an important exercise conducted by the Joint Committee to ensure that we deal with the past and the issue of Brits being involved in some of the worst atrocities seen in recent years. The very purpose of this report was to draw this to the Government’s attention, and we hoped for a more positive response from them. I can hope only that the Government will not pass on this important opportunity for a more effective and adequate way of responding to the scale of these crimes. I beg to move.
Our point about co-ordination between the CPS, the DPP and the war crimes unit is a good one. I am afraid that the Government’s response to that was not entirely satisfactory. The Government also responded that these sorts of crimes should be tried locally. I can entirely see the logic of that position, and in a perfect world, that would be right. The terrible crimes committed in northern Syria should be tried in northern Syria, so that the victims can see justice being done. The problem with that position for the Government is that there is an air of unreality. Given the state of government in northern Syria and northern Iraq and the fact that evidence was not collected at the time, there appears to be little will to prosecute these matters effectively. The reality is that we are in a better position to try here those people who are here for their crimes, and they can serve time here for their crimes.
We must ensure that those who are here are properly investigated. This must not be swept under the carpet. However, I would not encourage the bringing of people to Britain from northern Syria to be tried. There is a balancing of competing interests between protecting national security and trying those who are already here. I appreciate that the Government’s response echoes that there is a balancing act to be performed.
My second point is about deprivation orders. As the report rightly observes, deprivation orders are a useful tool to protect public safety. That is the power of the Home Secretary to remove British citizenship from somebody who is a dual national or entitled to another nationality. Removing their British nationality removes their entitlement to come to the UK and impose any kind of national security threat.
Obviously, there are considerable safeguards around the power. There is an entitlement to appeal, as we have seen in the repeated Shamima Begum litigation. The committee’s recommendation that there was insufficient supervision was, in my view, answered in large measure by paragraph 21 of the Government’s response. There is regular reporting of numbers, but that regularity could be increased. I noticed that the last publication of numbers of deprivations went up to the end of 2023; the Government may want to consider whether it is time to publish the numbers again.
In paragraph 21, the Government noted:
“The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration … has the remit to review the power”
by virtue of Sections 48 to 56 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and did so in 2018 and 2024. It is important that that continues. The Government’s response was, therefore, in some measure a satisfactory answer to the points made in the report.
The final issue covered in the report was the status of children who may be British in the camps in northern Syria. As is reflected in paragraph 23 of the Government’s response, this has been government policy for some time:
“Where British unaccompanied minors and orphans are brought to our attention, it is Government policy to seek to repatriate them where feasible and subject to confirmation of identity and nationality, and any national security concerns”.
We are unsure how many there may be. Although I understand the Government’s position that it is hard to say, it is important that efforts are made to ensure that any such children’s needs are addressed as swiftly as possible.
I hope that this report has brought to light some considerable issues that the Government will continue to ponder when addressing questions in relation to the crimes committed by Daesh.
That is, Syria should be encouraged to prosecute. This Labour Government today pursue precisely the same line. Their response to this excellent report, on which I congratulate the committee, said:
“The most serious international crimes not covered by our universal jurisdiction policy are generally already subject to the jurisdiction of international courts or tribunals which are better placed to prosecute such offences where they are not being dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities”.
They claimed to be a strong supporter of the ICC.
Put aside for a moment these foreign nationals. As the committee heard, more than 900 UK nationals and residents went to support Daesh in the conflicts in the Middle East, and somewhere between 450 and 600 returned. There is no question that, as the United Nations declared, the attack on the Yazidi population, which involved the murder of the men and the rape and enslavement of the women and children, amounted to genocide. Not one of the returnees has been prosecuted for genocide; nor has anyone arriving at our borders, whether legally or in small boats. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out a moment ago, there is no justice or accountability for the crimes against the Yazidis anywhere in the world.
Successive Directors of Public Prosecutions have shied away from bringing proceedings under the 2001 Act. The only case of a person convicted of a war crime on a prosecution brought under the Act was brought by the Director of Service Prosecutions. That person was Corporal Payne, in the Baha Mousa case in Basra, where an Iraqi civilian was beaten and kicked to death in British custody. I was present when he pleaded guilty to a war crime—inhumane treatment of prisoners —which he did only because it was an alternative to murder. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Payne was in charge of a detention facility, as noble Lords will remember, and invited passing British soldiers in to take a kick at the detainees. I defended in the same case a superior officer who was acquitted of neglect of duty.
At Second Reading of the then Bill in 2001, Lord Lester of Herne Hill argued that our courts
“should be ready to shoulder that responsibility should a suspected perpetrator of genocide or war crimes come within our territorial jurisdiction in circumstances where the ICC is unable to take over”.—[Official Report, 15/1/01; col. 939.]
That is precisely the case I am making.
In Committee, on 12 February of that year, there were amendments to make genocide and war crimes subject to universal jurisdiction. They were moved by Lord Archer of Sandwell, who served as the Solicitor-General for five years under Wilson and Callaghan; he was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who was later the Attorney-General for six years under Blair. For the Liberal Democrats, Lord Avebury—the heroic Eric Lubbock—argued strongly in favour of the amendments. My colleague and friend Lord Goodhart, who is much missed, put it succinctly when he said:
“Surely it is right that we should not apply a principle of territoriality to this, but if we find on our territory those who are alleged to have committed these terribly serious crimes and if, for one reason or another, there is no possibility of the ICC exercising its own jurisdiction, we should exercise our jurisdiction in this country whatever the location of such crimes and whatever the nationality of the person alleged to have committed them”.—[Official Report, 12/2/01; col. 82.]
The amendments were withdrawn on a concession that jurisdiction would extend to residents of the UK and not just nationals, as was originally drafted.
This report gives the current Attorney-General, in the light of the failure to bring anyone to account for the Yazidi genocide, a chance to reverse the stance taken by some of his predecessors in 2001. I hope that he will support amendments to that effect in the coming Crime and Policing Bill.
The report proposes the removal of these nationality and residence requirements in favour of universal jurisdiction. Further, it indicates that this can be achieved by amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001 via the Crime and Policing Bill now before the House of Lords. The amendments would provide for the adoption of universal jurisdiction alongside terrorism offences and specified greater collaboration between UK investigative bodies and NGOs, in order to strengthen the collection, preservation and use of evidence. Other recommendations include mechanisms to strengthen the research and documentation of genocide, the establishment of short-term tribunals to prosecute Daesh fighters, and the introduction of measures to enable UK courts to engage with the determination of genocide.
The Government’s arguments against the recommendations include the usual defences that a wide number of terrorism-related laws that identify and punish foreign fighters already exist; that the crimes under review are not that different from core international crime prosecutions and thus new measures are redundant; and that the difficulty in getting reliable evidence suggests that the inquiry should take place geographically close to where the crimes are alleged to have taken place, thereby facilitating access to witness evidence. Finally, the Government believe that the best approach lies in collaborating with states by means of treaties. The Government therefore conclude that amending the Criminal Court Act 2001 is not warranted.
The reply to the Government’s resistance to universal jurisdiction should be based on the underlying fundamental principles of justice and treaty obligations, not on the lack of political will or, indeed, government timidity. International law is binding on states, not individuals. Universal jurisdiction is not due to the severity of an offence, but, in the words of Geoffrey Robertson, because a crime of unforgiveable brutality ordained by a Government or a clear agent of the state exercising political power is part of the apparatus of the state, as are torturers employed by the state. Such crimes cannot be tied to a territorial jurisdiction, but rest on the truism that we are all human.
Universal jurisdiction is further justified because it may make the perpetrator pause and be aware that sometime, somewhere, some prosecutor may feel strongly enough to put him or her on trial. Also according to Robertson, an international criminal order, to which notions of frontiers and extradition rules arising therefrom, are completely foreign. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 needs revision due to the existing loophole that allows alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity to escape justice merely because of where they are from.
Other objections from the UK Government concerning the reliability of evidence can be countered by the emergence of no less than four bodies currently working on gathering and assessing evidence, including French and Swedish government initiatives, together with the results of trials of Daesh fighters already completed in Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, France and Sweden.
This failure of political will indicates that, by outsourcing accountability to other jurisdictions that may have inadequate reach and resources, the UK is not fulfilling its obligations under Article 1 of the genocide convention. It remains the fact that not one Daesh fighter has yet been prosecuted in the UK under the terms of the genocide convention. If we are to judge by results, this is a dismal record.
Deprivation of citizenship on grounds conducive to the public good is a power used for national security purposes. As a measure devastating in its effects on the individual and yet exercised on the basis of secret intelligence assessments deferred to by the courts, it requires the same sort of review as is given by the security-cleared independent reviewer, in the service of Parliament and the public, to the other powers exercised by Ministers and the police in relation to terrorism and state threats. Published figures are welcome but afford only the outline of what is needed, and many questions have gone unanswered. To take an example raised in evidence by the independent reviewer, what was the intelligence case for the sudden surge in deprivations in 2017? What was the make-up of those subjected to it? What happened to them and why was deprivation used in preference to all the other tools?
This House will soon be asked to look at the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill, which seeks to reverse the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court earlier this year in N3 and ZA v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. To do our job effectively, we need to know more about how the deprivation power is exercised; the independent reviewer is the person to tell us.
One possible reason for the unusual prevalence of citizenship deprivation in the UK, and for the various executive orders that can be placed upon unconvicted persons, is the difficulty in bringing such persons to trial. Reference has already been made to the remarkably low proportion of Daesh returnees who have been prosecuted in the UK for terrorism offences. When I used to look closely at those figures during the heyday of Islamic State, much higher rates were being achieved by our continental neighbours, and I am not aware that this has changed.
Thanks to the development of the counterterrorism division of the CPS and the terrorism list in the Crown Court, the prosecution of terrorists in this country has markedly improved since 2006, when Charles Clarke, as Home Secretary, could say to the Home Affairs Select Committee:
“I think that an investigating magistrates regime is very superior to the system that we have in this country … I do not think the adversarial system has been a particularly effective means of securing justice”.
As is shown in Frank Foley’s informative book, Countering Terrorism in Britain and France, we continue to place a comparatively high premium on fairness. We do not have an offence as broad as the French “association de malfaiteurs”. We do not have investigative magistrates who can spend months or years building a case while a suspect is in custody, who face less exacting disclosure requirements and who have regard to sensitive intelligence that could never be placed before a jury in coming to their decisions. All this speaks well for our traditions of justice and our unwillingness to compromise them, but it does not make it easy to convict foreign fighters, even for terrorism offences.
That brings me, finally, to the shaming fact, which noble Lords have heard already, that no Daesh fighter has been successfully prosecuted in the UK for committing international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity or even war crimes. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady D’Souza, that this amounts to a failure of this country to acknowledge the true nature of the criminality that Daesh presented, particularly in relation to the Yazidi.
Without question, it would be hard to prosecute these crimes, but surely that is all the more reason for seeking to remove such obstacles as can be removed. After all, the Government, in their response to the report, indicate agreement with the committee’s conclusion that, where the UK has jurisdiction over international crimes, it should seek to investigate and prosecute them. Desirable, even preferable, as it might be for these crimes to be prosecuted in international or hybrid tribunals, the prospects—from what I have heard—do not look promising.
I commend the Government for the support they gave to UNITAD and that they give to the IIIM in Syria and the NCIJC in Iraq. However, like other noble Lords, I would like to know why more cannot be done to ease the path to prosecutions here. Echoing in part the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I end with three practical questions. Is it right that we have never requested evidence from UNITAD, or joined a joint investigative team for Daesh, and, if so, why? Why have we not signed or ratified the Ljubljana-Hague Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance? Why should we not remove the requirement of citizenship or residency in Sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001?
Where a fighter has returned to the UK, we on these Benches are clear that they should be prosecuted for their crimes. While terrorism prosecutions may be more straightforward, as the committee notes in its report, prosecutions of these individuals should include international crimes, in our view. When we were in government, we took strong action to protect the British people from the risks posed by returnees, while ruthlessly pursuing justice for the victims of Daesh. The Home Secretary, as has been noted, has the power to exclude non-British nationals from the UK and, in some circumstances, where that individual would not be made stateless, strip particularly dangerous individuals of their British citizenship. We did not shy away from acting to protect public safety. Of the 900 people who were deemed to be a concern to our national security, and who travelled to Syria and Iraq to join terrorist organisations, I am pleased to say that more than 100 were deprived of their British citizenship by the previous Government.
I know, of course—I read in the report—that the joint committee has concerns that the UK uses deprivation of citizenship orders more than almost any country in the world and the committee called for greater scrutiny. I also note, however, that it rightly recognised that it is important for the Government to be able to take steps such as citizenship-stripping in the interests of public safety, and that is a conclusion with which I agree. We took that action in the interests of public safety and I hope that the current Government will continue that work to keep the British people safe.
We also introduced tough new powers to prevent British citizens from entering designated terrorist hotspots, without legitimate reason, through the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. Where an individual who has committed these crimes is present in the UK, they should always be prosecuted. Those new powers to prevent entry to terrorist hotspots are, I am pleased to say, already helping to bring more of those fighters to justice.
That said, we know that a number of people deemed to be of concern to our national security due to links with terrorist groups, and who have returned to the UK from Iraq and Syria, have sadly not been prosecuted so far. The committee did not report on those numbers but expressed concern about the evidence that it received on the number of Daesh fighters being put to the CPS for charging decisions; that, I am sorry to say, is minimal. I hope that the Minister replying to the debate may provide us with an update on that prosecution work today. Ministers have previously put the number of returnees and the successful prosecution rate on the record, and it would be useful to the committee to have a formal update on those figures.
On the question of Daesh fighters who remain in the region, the Government responded by stating that investigations should take place closer to where the crimes were committed to allow for a more robust evidence-gathering process. That principle is broadly right. Whatever the concerns of the committee about the legal systems in Iraq and Syria, and there are many, it has to be right that those Daesh fighters who remain in the region are prosecuted for their crimes there, if at all possible. Indeed, while the committee has raised proposals on the future of domestic legislation in respect of international law, we must always—I am sure the Government are—put the security of the British people first. That means minimising the risk of Daesh fighters who pose a threat to the British people returning to the UK, unless their return is absolutely necessary.
In conclusion, we congratulate the committee on, and thank it for, its hard work in preparing this report and we look forward to working with members of the committee in holding the Government to account on future action to bring to justice the perpetrators of those appalling crimes committed by Daesh.
I will begin by setting out the current situation and the Government’s policy. Daesh remains one of the most significant global terrorist threats. We continue to work closely with partners to reduce this threat, including through our work as a member of the global coalition against Daesh. While the UK and its partners in the global coalition have taken effective action against Daesh, it still poses a serious threat. Many of its members continue to enjoy impunity for heinous crimes. We must continue efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of Daesh and to hold it to account.
It will not surprise any noble Lords to hear that, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said on behalf of the Official Opposition, the safety and security of our people remains the top priority for the UK Government. The Government have been clear that anyone returning from conflict in Syria or Iraq must expect to be met at the UK border by Counter Terrorism Policing, interviewed and, where relevant, investigated to determine whether they have committed criminal offences.
I turn to the content of the committee’s report and the issues raised by noble Lords. A number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Kennedy, raised universal jurisdiction. The UK’s position has not changed: we hold that international crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. This helps secure reliable evidence and witnesses for a fair and credible judicial process. The UK continues to support partners to deliver this justice. For example, last month marked the 11th anniversary of the Yazidi genocide. The UK strongly supported the passage of Iraq’s Yazidi survivors’ law and has funded its implementation. We have since provided a further £100,000 to boost Iraq’s capacity to hold Daesh to account and to increase survivor access to reparations and rehabilitation.
The UK Government exercise universal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the Geneva conventions. However, prosecuting Daesh members in the UK is often difficult due to challenges with gathering evidence and securing access to suspects. I think that, despite criticism, most, if not all, noble Lords who participated in the debate this afternoon recognise those real difficulties. The police work closely with international partners and organisations to improve our access to that evidence. Investigations are a matter for the police, who are operationally independent. If they believe an offence has been committed, the police will refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Decisions on prosecution are taken independently by the CPS. They are based on the availability of evidence and whether prosecution is in the public interest. A range of offences can be used to prosecute foreign fighters returned to the UK with penalties up to life imprisonment. To be clear, the police do not restrict their investigations to terrorist offences. Where there is significant evidence and a legal basis, we will prosecute in the UK. However, building these cases takes time, and we must continue efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of Daesh and to hold it to account.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of using only terrorism charges in the pursuit of justice, not least my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. The Government acknowledge the specific nature and scale of international crimes such as genocide. Perpetrators of such crimes must face justice in accordance with the principles that I have outlined. They should be investigated and charged with requisite access to robust evidence and witnesses. There is a wide range of criminal offences that can be used to prosecute returning foreign fighters. CPS charging decisions are led by the evidence, and the most appropriate charge is selected based on the evidence. Crown prosecutors must consider whether evidence is admissible, reliable and credible, and those standards do not differ in a core international crime prosecution. Prosecuting terrorism and core international crimes are not mutually exclusive and can be combined where the evidence presents itself.
Many noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, drew a comparison between the UK and other European countries, particularly Germany, in terms of success in prosecutions. It is fair to say that Germany has had some fantastic successes that are to be commended. The international community is working together to ensure that justice is done. Sharing evidence and best practice is critical, and we are grateful to our German colleagues. International comparisons in the context of prosecutions must include some caveats. There are fundamental differences between our adversarial system and inquisitorial systems, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Different systems used in other countries can impact on how material is used and exchanged. There are a number of differences, including laws around disclosure and what evidence is admissible at trial, which can be complex. Nevertheless, where there is potential evidence, prosecutors will work with police, intelligence agencies and international partners to build a case to the point where there is admissible, reliable, credible evidence satisfying the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
There were some questions from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and other noble Lords about the collection of evidence of crimes committed by Daesh. In Syria, the UN International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism—the IIIN—assists the investigation and prosecution of individuals complicit in crimes committed during the Syria conflict. We encourage all parties to engage with it and help facilitate evidence-gathering efforts, including unfettered access to sensitive sites used by the former regime’s security apparatus. The UK/IIIM memorandum of understanding signed in March 2022 enables the UK to use IIIM information in investigations and prosecutions and allows the IIIM to request UK information to support prosecutions in other jurisdictions. The MoU signals our ongoing commitment to accountability, and we continue to advocate for the IIIM to ensure that it has the resources required to conduct its operations and address the widespread impunity and suffering of the Syrian people.
Through the integrated security fund, the UK funds programmes to document human rights violations and supports the trial and convictions of perpetrators of war crimes, including sexual violence. The UK and the US have co-funded important guidance that sets out relevant, serious, specific advice and best practice to follow when collecting evidence of or investigating sexual and gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence. Through the Global Survivors Fund, the UK has, since 2022, has provided medical, psychosocial, legal and financial support to more than Syrian survivors of sexual violence in Turkey.
Turning to what might be termed consular issues, I note the committee’s recommendations on British nationals in north-east Syria and the repatriation of minors. Where unaccompanied British minors and orphans are brought to our attention, we aim to repatriate them where feasible, subject to confirming their identity and nationality and any national security concerns. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised specific questions on this issue. We are aware that there are British nationals, including minors, located in north-east Syria, but I am afraid that we are not in a position to comment on exact numbers due to shifting circumstances on the ground, the lack of a consular presence and the range of sources from which information is taken. We do not comment on numbers, as I said. Each request for consular assistance from Syria is considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all relevant circumstances including, but not limited to, national security.
It is fair to reflect, as was acknowledged by the committee, that conditions in Syria continue to be difficult, particularly in the north-east where there remains a high threat from terrorism and widespread political instability. This increases the challenges that the UK Government face in facilitating these repatriations. However, I can confirm that we facilitated a repatriation from Syria to the United Kingdom in August. This repatriation was in line with the long-standing policy that all requests from Syria for UK consular assistance are considered on a case-by-case basis.
I move on to deprivation and oversight, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The questions raised were about whether there is sufficient independent oversight and a lack of transparency. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in the Government’s written response to the committee’s report, we believe that there is sufficient oversight of and transparency in the use of the deprivation power. As was observed, the Government publish data on deprivation as part of the Counter-Terrorism Disruptive Powers Report. Eight such reports have been published to date.
We believe that there is also sufficient independent oversight from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who has the remit to review the power. The ICIBI conducted independent reviews of the deprivation power in reports published in 2018 and 2024. The power to deprive a person of their British citizenship on grounds that it would be conducive to the public good is used sparingly. Decisions on deprivation are not taken lightly.