Genocide Determination Bill [HL]

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, in previous debates on atrocity crimes, I have said that we cannot continue to look away when there is credible evidence of genocide. The Bill before us today is an opportunity to address this challenge, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his continued efforts to find a way to formally determine genocide. His introduction clearly set out why that is needed.

The House of Lords Library briefing sets out the central problem with clarity. For decades, successive Governments have relied on the position that determinations of genocide should be made by competent courts, rather than by Governments or non-judicial bodies. Yet despite this position’s longevity, no Government have ever introduced legislation to give effect to it. As a result, when credible evidence of genocide emerges, British courts have no mechanism to assess it.

We have a policy that says, “Leave it to the courts”, but no legal pathway for our courts to act. As a Minister at the FCDO, I found this position inconsistent and difficult to defend, and I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his earlier efforts aimed at creating a mechanism for genocide determination linked to trade agreements. The Bill provides us with an opportunity to ensure that the UK does not turn away when credible evidence of atrocity crimes is presented. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, the Bill will ensure that the UK Government act quickly on their existing obligations under the genocide convention, which legally binds signatories to prevent mass atrocities the moment a serious risk is recognised.

In earlier debates I have emphasised the importance of a survivor centred approach. This Bill embodies that principle. It empowers victims and survivors to seek a preliminary determination of genocide or serious risk of genocide from our own High Court or equivalent courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It gives those targeted by atrocity crimes a route to be heard in a British court. Once a determination is made, the Secretary of State must act. That action—referring the situation to the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice or other bodies—is not an expansion of government power. It is simply the implementation of our existing duties under the genocide convention: the duty to prevent and the duty to punish.

There may well be a concern that our judicial system is not structured to deal with cases of this nature, but if the Government wish to maintain their long standing policy of leaving genocide determinations to competent courts then, recognising the issues with the international courts that have been set out, they must introduce legislation that allows British courts to fulfil that role or provide any alternative. Otherwise, “Never again” is honoured only in rhetoric and never in practice.

Inaction empowers perpetrators. It signals that the United Kingdom is unable or unwilling to recognise genocide even when the evidence is overwhelming. It leaves victims without recourse and it leaves our international obligations unfulfilled. This Bill offers a principled, judicial, survivor centred mechanism that aligns with the Government’s own stated policy and with our obligations under international law. If we are serious about preventing genocide, we must be serious about recognising it.