Genocide Determination Bill [HL]

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we begin this debate, I remind the House that the advisory speaking time is strictly four minutes for Back-Bench contributions.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, on this politically auspicious day, as we mark the appointment of Andy Burnham Member of Parliament as the new leader of the Labour Party, we know that we have a parliamentarian who is passionately committed to the principle of public accountability and justice. It is serendipitous, perhaps providential, that a Bill which seeks to entrench both accountability and justice for genocide—the crime above all crimes—should receive its Second Reading in this House today, and I thank all noble Lords from all Benches who are participating.

Today is also International Criminal Justice Day, which marks the anniversary of the adoption of the Rome statute on 17 July 1998—the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, which seeks to protect people from genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. What better day, then, to have the Second Reading of the Genocide Determination Bill, which manifests all these values and commitments to victims and survivors, to justice and peace? Noble Lords should be clear that the Bill is not actor or territory specific; it is about the crime above all crimes and our willingness to make a reality of the intentions of the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide.

Only a few weeks ago, with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, we had a constructive and helpful meeting with the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and he told us that genocide is the “apex crime”. There is no surprise there.

Over the years, whether in this House or the other place, I have raised the appalling genocides, crimes against humanity, that have occurred in too many parts of the world. As a young MP in the House of Commons, I raised the appalling genocide of Pol Pot against the Cambodians, and subsequently the atrocities in Darfur, western China, Burma, northern Iraq and elsewhere, all of which are documented in a book which I published with Dr Ewelina Ochab of the International Bar Association and the Coalition for Genocide Response, of which I am a patron. A few weeks ago, I also raised the dire situation of women and girls in Gaza.

There is no shortage of suffering globally. We need, however, to be very careful about the words we use, how we use them and the actions which must follow. So why does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, describe it as the “apex crime” and why is our response to this crime above all others so inadequate? The word “genocide”, of course, was coined by the Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, over 40 of whose family had perished in the Holocaust. It is a hybrid word combining the ancient Greek word “genos”, meaning race or tribe or family, and the Latin suffix “cide”, meaning killing. It is a specific word with a specific meaning and is not to be used as a slogan. Genocide is an identity-based crime and describes the systematic destruction of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It is the cutting of the human family.

We have heard it being used for situations globally, but genocide has a strict legal definition, and we always need to go back to it. Genocide and the 1948 convention which bears its name require us to show not only the underlying and prohibited acts, and I spell them out, of killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. To become genocide, these acts must be directed against one of the protected groups, whether racial, national, ethnic or religious, and this with specific intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part. Lemkin’s definition of genocide, as contained in Article II of the convention, was meant to establish genocide as what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, called the “apex crime”, the crime above all crimes, with the hope that, after the Holocaust, we would never witness anything of that sort again.

However, defining genocide did not stop such atrocities being perpetrated. More importantly, the convention is not only about defining what genocide is; it imposes duties on the signatories, of which we are one. Let us disassemble, if we may, the neglected duties. There is prevention. While not explicitly explained in the convention, it was later expanded and explained by the International Court of Justice. It is a duty to prevent and—I spell out its words—for states

“to employ all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible”.

The trigger for this duty is when the state learns or should normally have learned of the serious risk of genocide.

As for protection, consider the plight of women and girls in Sudan, the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. In a report I published for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan in April 2023, we specifically warned of the danger of a new genocide in Darfur. Of course, that has happened in El Fasher. We did not act on the warnings and the requirement to protect—not in relation to that genocide and not in relation to the genocide two decades ago. In Darfur, the first ever arrest warrant was issued by the ICC, but 200,000 to 300,000 lives were claimed, 2 million people were displaced and the warnings had fallen, then and again 20 years later, on deaf ears. There are no blue helmets and no protection for the civilian population. It is as if, in the grand scheme of things, these African lives do not matter.

As for punishing perpetrators, we are equally deficient. Let us be crystal clear: the impunity for the genocide two decades ago in Darfur has a direct link with the genocide that is being perpetrated before our very eyes now. So duties to predict, prevent, protect and punish at the moment are not worth the paper on which they are written.

I first introduced the Genocide Determination Bill only a few months after I laid amendments here and with colleagues in another place following a unanimous vote that had determined that the atrocities committed by ISIS against Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in northern Iraq and Syria was a genocide. It was the first time that the House of Commons had made such a determination. But, despite the calls from across the political spectrum for genocide determination and action to stop those atrocities, to prevent further atrocities, to protect the populations at risk and to avert the risk that the communities would be annihilated, the Foreign Office refused to accept the determination made in another place, arguing that such a determination could be made only by an international judicial body or a competent court, despite knowing only too well that there was no international judicial body that was going to look into those crimes committed by ISIS in Syria or Iraq. The Government also made it clear that they were not willing to move on that position.

That made me consider what would need to happen to implement the Government’s declared policy that only a court can decide and how we could create a route into our own courts to make that happen. If indeed the Government wanted court determination, my question was: could our domestic courts make such a determination? As it stood at the time, the only legislation pertaining to genocide was the International Criminal Court Act 2001, legislating and domesticating the Rome statute of the ICC. It enables our court to prosecute individuals for their involvement in international crimes such as genocide, but it equips domestic courts with only very narrow jurisdiction over international crimes: namely, active personality jurisdiction, which means that the alleged perpetrators must be British citizens or residents to fall within the purview of the legislation.

In the case of the Yazidis, it is very significant that the Foreign Office has changed its position and has said that a genocide is under way, and has done so because a court in Germany has declared it to be a genocide. While I welcome that, why is it that we are closing off a route to our own English High Court and to the Court of Session in Scotland: courts that would be more than competent to deal with this matter here? It was my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead who said that the 1948 convention was no longer fit for purpose—his words. He gave us his valuable expertise and help in drafting the original Bill, and I have talked this Bill through with him. I hope we will not hear from the Government that this is not practical or doable when such an illustrious Member of your Lordships’ House is one of the many who have given it support.

Instead of the cynical merry-go-round that we have at the moment, we need to establish an independent British judicial process to sift the evidence and make a preliminary finding triggering the provisions of the convention. If this is the apex crime, genocide has a high burden of proof, and rightly so. It is not a term to be thrown around lightly or to be misused. My Bill seeks to give force to the hopes of Raphael Lemkin and of Winston Churchill, who said that there was not a word in our language capable of describing the monstrosities which had occurred in the Holocaust. There were genuine attempts in the post-war period to address those questions. We need to return to those issues now and do something practical about it. I commend this Bill, which enjoys all-party support, to the House, and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for presenting this Bill. Like all noble Lords in today’s debate, I pay tribute to him for his tireless campaigning, both in this House and indeed in an earlier life in the other place, on these issues on behalf of so many who have no voice. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it is taking place on the Day of International Criminal Justice, with today being the 28th anniversary of the founding of the International Criminal Court.

How we consider the crime of genocide is among the most serious foreign policy responsibilities of any Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General calls it the “apex crime”. That the genocide convention was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948 underlines the international community’s shared commitment to ensuring that the horrors of the Holocaust occur never again. It is critical that the UK Government’s position on genocide determination is robust and consistent with our obligations under the convention. The long-standing position of successive British Governments fulfils this. The position is that any formal judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court after considering all necessary evidence and as part of a credible judicial process, including appropriate jurisdiction. This ensures that any determination is impartial, independent and evidence-based.

I must say at this point that I have sympathy with both the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, in their critique of some of the technical aspects of the Bill, especially the legal points around jurisdiction. Key partners, including France, Italy and Japan, also refrain from making determinations without a court judgment. In contrast, this Bill would introduce the novel concept of a preliminary determination by the UK courts. As we have heard, this has no settled or solid basis in international law. At present, I am afraid that the noble Lord’s Bill does not suitably consider this point.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said, there is also the issue of constitutional independence between different branches. It is Ministers who are rightly accountable to Parliament for decisions around diplomacy and foreign policy, and we should never want our courts to be engaged in that sort of decision-making. However, this Bill might well lead them to straying into such an area, placing what we might call political as well as legal obligations on the Foreign Secretary.

I stress, though, that the UK position does not and has not prevented the UK taking action. Indeed, atrocity and conflict prevention capability is central to the FCDO. By the end of the year, the department will have run 16 training courses and numerous capability-building events for staff. The newly established conflict resources hub integrates guidance, training and evidence-based practice, improving accessibility and utility. This ensures that when risks escalate or atrocities occur, we act decisively and quickly, working through diplomatic channels and international institutions to raise the alarm, build consensus and co-ordinate action. This includes at the UN Human Rights Council, where our human rights ambassador recently raised the UK’s deep concern around the situation in Xinjiang.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle asked some specific questions about measuring risk and prevention. The indicators of risk of genocide are obviously context-specific. The genocide convention does not provide detail, but we are committed to investing in our systems for early warnings of atrocities. We monitor risks around the world using datasets to assess factors that indicate where atrocities may occur in line with the UN framework of analysis for atrocity crimes.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and others, I say that our atrocity prevention strategy saves lives, upholds international law and breaks cycles of violence. In the financial year 2025-26, we gave £150,000 to support the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect to help those at risk of atrocities. Dedicated atrocity prevention capability continues at the FCDO, as I have said. It has now been integrated into the humanitarian directorate, which means better-integrated analysis and delivery. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, that we are engaging with regional partners and through international organisations to prevent atrocities, particularly in terms of conflict-related sexual violence, which she raised. This is of course a breach of international law, and we will work with the UK-founded International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. This is, to be clear, a real priority for the Foreign Secretary.

In response to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I stress that the FCDO works with the Metropolitan Police through the War Crimes Network, which brings together relevant parties across government, both in terms of policy and operationally. The last War Crimes Network meeting was in April 2026, which ensured closer integration and joint working.

At this point, I want to respond to some of the issues raised with regard to specific conflicts. First, in the context of the suffering caused by Daesh, the UK was a fierce advocate for justice for the Yazidi people long before we determined that acts of genocide had taken place. At the UN Security Council, we played a leading role in establishing the United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh. We provided £2 million to support the collection of evidence against Daesh’s crimes and we worked closely with our Iraqi partners to pass the Yazidi survivors law in 2021, enabling reparations and support for the survivors. While much progress has been made, Daesh of course remains a threat. We will continue to work tirelessly with our partners in pursuit of its enduring defeat. I recognise the heart-rending testimony provided to your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, of Sayed and his daughter Shaiqa; it is a heartbreaking story. What is happening is akin to gender persecution. It is abhorrent. Women and girls—I emphasise girls—have been specifically targeted and subjected to abductions, forced conversions, forced marriages, rape and sexual violence. This is horrific. We will continue to work closely with Iraqi partners to ensure that all those working with or for Daesh are held accountable, including through our work as members of the Global Coalition Against Daesh.

I turn to Sudan, mentioned by many noble Lords but particularly my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who has direct personal experience of living in the area. The scale of suffering in Sudan is unimaginable. The findings of the UN’s fact-finding mission following the fall of El Fasher last year were alarming. This makes recent reports of the imminent Rapid Support Forces offensive at El Obeid extremely concerning. The world failed the people of El Fasher; we cannot let that happen again. In February we launched the coalition for atrocity prevention and justice in Sudan, uniting the international community around the goal of preventing another El Fasher. The coalition has already condemned the Sudanese Armed Forces strike on El-Daein Teaching Hospital and the growing uses of drones in this conflict.

The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Wills raised the action with respect to El Obeid. I want to be clear that, earlier this month, the Prime Minister raised the situation and issued a statement at NATO, and there was a UK-penned Human Rights Council resolution condemning the atrocities and calling for an urgent inquiry by a UN fact-finding mission, which was adopted by consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said that we were simply making gestures. I do not think this is quite fair to our actions. We are doing more than making gestures. In the case of Sudan, we have sanctioned 24 individuals and entities since the outbreak of the conflict in 2023. I also point to the action of my noble friend Lady Chapman, the Minister, who wrote to the Commons International Development Committee earlier this month outlining UK action around El Fasher and saying how our relationship with the UAE had not impacted our actions and our determination to call out atrocities when we see them.

I turn to Gaza and remind your Lordships’ House, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, who raised it, that one of the Government’s first acts was to review and suspend export licences for items that might be used by the Israel Defense Forces to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. In making export licensing decisions, we carefully assess all relevant evidence relating to our obligations under international law, including, where relevant, the genocide convention.

At this point, I gently point out to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who talked about an omertà in discussing Gaza, that, having spent a lot of time on the Front Bench having various debates over the past year-plus, Gaza has been discussed, I would say, more often than any other foreign policy issue. I am not saying that there is not a good case for that, but I do say that, sadly, it has been, not only in this House but in the other place, potentially at the expense of other places that require attention: for instance, Sudan. I am very pleased that, in today’s debate, we have not had that imbalance but have paid attention to a wide variety of places where, sadly, there are issues that we need to look at. I stress that we continue to raise our concerns with the Israeli Government and counterparts at all levels. In light of the ceasefire, there has been deep relief felt around the world, but we must now see full and unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port raised the issue of Myanmar. In March 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in case of The Gambia v Myanmar. This case is now entering its deliberative phase and we welcome the ICJ’s consideration. Since 2021, the UK has imposed 19 rounds of targeted sanctions, including 10 individual sanctions targeting the aviation fuel sector in Myanmar.

We continue to stand by the International Criminal Court and its mission to end impunity. To be clear, since the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, raised it, we very firmly support the ICC. We are proud to be one of the court’s biggest funders, providing £14.3 million of support this year alone. Our approach to universal jurisdiction is that, where there is no apparent link between the UK and the crime, we support the principle that international crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. This reflects the practical advantages of securing the evidence and witnesses necessary for a fair investigation and prosecution. Our approach, as I have said, is similar to that of key partners, including the US, Italy, Japan and France. The most serious international crimes not covered by our approach to universal jurisdiction are often already subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, which is generally better placed to prosecute such offences where they are not dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities.

We are all in agreement that a robust, credible process to determine whether a genocide has occurred is essential to ensuring that perpetrators are held to account. Like others, I thank and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for giving us yet another opportunity to debate, discuss and try to understand the issues that are at play here as we seek to end the most awful crimes that can be committed around the world.

As both the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, rightly said, using the term “genocide” lazily, irresponsibly and inappropriately can be harmful in this country to individuals, to communities and to our society. I suggest that perhaps that has happened in recent weeks and months. This is a serious issue and so we must, as we have all said, treat this seriously.

As I have made clear, genocide determination is no place to introduce novel concepts, and the preliminary determination, which has no basis in international law, is one of those concepts. That is why we express reservations about the Bill, and, as a counterpoint, why the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others deem it necessary to bring the Bill before our House to allow us to discuss this. I assure him that my noble friend Lady Chapman, the Minister, would be very happy to continue discussions with the noble Lord about this important issue.

We stand firm in our belief that any formal judgment is a matter for competent courts that have come to a reasoned conclusion, after considering all the evidence available, as part of a credible judicial process, including appropriate jurisdiction.

In response to the very powerful words of my noble friend Lord Cashman, I say that, where we can prosecute the crime of genocide, we will. Where we cannot, we will do all we can to help others to do so. Through robust legal processes and close international partnership, we can ensure that there is no safe haven for perpetrators and that those responsible for these heinous crimes are brought to justice. I hope that I have addressed—

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

When I referred to an omertà, I was not suggesting that there had not been discussion in this House about Gaza or the West Bank. I was suggesting that many people around this House feel inhibited about raising this issue or speaking to it because they fear that they will be accused of antisemitism.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I apologise if I misunderstood my noble friend. To be absolutely clear, somebody can be very critical of the actions of the Israeli Government, as I am, but that should not be conflated with antisemitism. But I also do not think that necessarily inhibits any Member in your Lordships’ House from making a clear and dispassionate case about actions that are being undertaken by the Israeli Government, or, at the same time, from calling out antisemitism where it occurs in this or any country. On that matter, I hope that we are agreed.

I hope that I have addressed as many questions as I possibly can in, probably, far too much time. I will reflect on Hansard and I undertake to write to any noble Lords if I have missed their question.