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.
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow and support my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Although he sits in a different part of the House, I regard him as a friend, and I am very glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless way that he has campaigned year after year on this critical issue. He has already outlined how his Bill will work, its purpose and its merits far better than I can, so I will try not to rehearse the points that he has made.
However, I do want to say why this Bill is so important. At first glance, it may seem like a limited measure tackling anomaly in process, but it speaks fundamentally to what sort of country we are and how far we are prepared to prioritise abiding moral imperatives over perceived geopolitical interests. These need not always be in conflict, of course, and even when they might be, it is worth remembering the immortal words of a past Member of your Lordships’ House, Lord Palmerston:
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies”.
Geopolitical interests can be transitory and subjectively defined, but our eternal and perpetual interests, to use Lord Palmerston’s words, must include those moral imperatives that this Bill pursues. As we have heard already from the noble Lord, it is not focused on a specific case or situation but seeks to ensure access to justice for victims and survivors of genocide who otherwise would not have such access.
My Lords, as a general rule, I support most of the ideas the noble Lord, Lord Alton, brings to your Lordships’ House, as he is motivated by a genuine desire to improve the state of the world and those who live in it. I join the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in the tributes he paid to the noble Lord, not least because I share with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a desire to see China—a country which can claim a long and civilised history, and which has brought great intellectual, artistic, scientific and many other benefits to us all—behave in the 21st century in a way that matches the best traditions of that great nation. However, there are far too many contemporary examples of Chinese government conduct towards their own citizens that rightly attract international criticism and condemnation—for example, what they are doing to the Uyghur people, Christians, free thinkers and supporters of freedom of assembly and expression, and to the man whose name should never be forgotten in this Parliament or any other democratic assembly: Jimmy Lai.
However, I query what practical effect this Bill would have on, say, China. My hunch—and it is only a hunch—is that the court would be reluctant to engage in an essentially political question, or at least, one with huge non-legal implications over which it has no control. Unlike Members of Parliament, judges do not table Early Day Motions. They do not initiate 10-minute rule Bills or Adjournment debates in the other place or in Westminster Hall. Although courts sometimes make findings of fact in the absence of contested evidence, I wonder how a court would look at evidence of, say, the alleged killing or mass incarceration of members of an ethnic group by the Chinese Government when we know that China, for good or ill, asserts its innocence of such crimes and the court is unlikely to have received direct evidence of guilt.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for introducing this Bill, which I support, and for his unwavering commitment over many years to the prevention of genocide, the protection of persecuted communities and the advancement of human rights.
At the heart of the Bill lies a simple yet profound principle that every human life possesses equal and inherent worth. There is a clear inconsistency in our present arrangements. Successive Governments have rightly maintained that genocide is a matter for a competent court. However, in practice, the international courts capable of making such determinations are not always able to do so because of jurisdictional limitations or political deadlock. The result is that credible allegations of the gravest crime recognised in international law may never receive judicial determination. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, made this point compellingly in his speech.
There are legitimate questions about how the mechanism at the heart of this Bill will operate and about its relationship with foreign policy, as my friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, pointed out in his speech. Those are proper matters for Committee, but they do not undermine the principle behind the Bill. Rather, they challenge us to ensure that any mechanism is proportionate, carefully designed and properly resourced.
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.
My Lords, if, as the Government constantly assert, only a court ruling can determine acts of genocide, the courts must have the powers to carry out this function. At present, they do not. This renders the 1948 genocide convention no longer fit for purpose, and the commitment, following the Holocaust, to “Never again” becomes almost meaningless, as we have heard. This modest Bill seeks to enable any person or representative organisation affected by genocidal actions to apply to the UK courts to decide on whether genocide has taken, is taking, or is likely to take place. In so doing, a response from the Government is required and the relevant Minister would be obliged, within time limits, to refer the case to the appropriate international bodies—the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or other international bodies.
The arguments for such powers have been well rehearsed over many years, and equally so too have the arguments against. Both sides were expressed in some detail in the course of the atrocity crimes debate in June in this Chamber. The arguments that this focused Bill is urgently needed can be in no doubt. The evidence lies in the numerous credible reports on past acts of genocide and on current threats of genocidal action.
A recent book, Genocide in Gaza, by the world-renowned Israeli scholar, Avi Shlaim, sets out in forensic legal details the actions—which he states are the absolute antithesis of Jewish values—perpetrated by the Netanyahu Government between 2023 and 2024 in Gaza in response to the murder of Israelis on 7 October 2023. Shlaim describes the Netanyahu policy as one of deliberate killing or persecution intended to partially or wholly destroy the people of Gaza. It is difficult to refute his conclusions of genocidal intent and actions on the part of the Israeli Government.
The independent International Commission of Inquiry, following the case brought before the ICJ in 2024 by South Africa into Israel’s conduct in Gaza, cites intentionally directed attacks on civilians, of whom many were women and children; forcible transfer of civilian populations; destruction of water and electricity infrastructure, which is indispensable for survival; starvation as a method of warfare; and wilfully impeding relief supplies. These actions more than fulfil the criteria for genocide as set out in the 1948 convention.
My Lords, it always gives me pleasure to be able to support my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He and I have worked extensively over many years, and I pay tribute to him, as others have. He comes to us again with this Bill, which aims to establish a formal legal mechanism to allow British courts to make preliminary determinations on whether genocide is occurring or is at risk of occurring. When we signed the Genocide Act we not only agreed to condemn genocide and bring perpetrators to justice but committed to preventing genocide. That is one of the major things about this. Prevention means monitoring for indicators, such as dehumanising language used by politicians with an undercurrent threat of annihilation, human rights abuses of minorities or of neighbouring peoples, dispossessing people of their homes and lands, the displacement of people, making conditions of life so intolerable that people are forced into exile, sexual violence against despised groups and all those signs of ethnic cleansing. We are seeing these things happening in many conflicts around the world. There were more than 60 conflicts ongoing at the last count.
I want to ask a number of questions of the Government about why there might be opposition to the Bill. I smile at my learned friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Saying no and being a naysayer are the steps that lead to accountability. These are the things we need to do if we want to have a just world. We must not nod our head and say, “It’s not going to work”, or “Who is going to listen? Are the Chinese going to listen?” I have worked very hard on the Uyghur issue. I know how hard it is, but we keep on keeping on.
My Lords, last week marked the 31st anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, where 8,372 Bosniak men and boys were systematically murdered in what the United Nations had declared a safe haven. Their wives, daughters and sisters were subjected to rape and expulsion as part of a calculated campaign of ethnic cleansing. In March 1995, Radovan Karadžić, president of the self-declared Republika Srpska, issued directive 7, ordering the creation of, in his words,
“an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival … for the inhabitants of Srebrenica”.
Four months later, those words were translated to ethnically motivated mass slaughter. In 2007, the International Court of Justice confirmed that Srebrenica was genocide. Srebrenica did not occur because the world lacked information. Karadzic’s interventions were set out in plain terms. The warning signs were unmistakable. UN peacekeepers were in Srebrenica. Diplomatic cables were incoming. The failure was not of knowledge but of political will.
The lessons have still not been learned. Only two days ago, a serving Serbian Government Minister declared that if she had been Slobodan Milošević, she would have ethnically cleansed Kosovo in 1998. Three decades after Srebrenica, language that seeks to justify ethnic cleansing is still being voiced from public office. That should alarm us all. We have since witnessed Daesh’s attempt to destroy the Yazidis and the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, and today there are grave reports of mass killings in Gaza and Sudan.
20 of 45 shown
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.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has argued that there are limitations on what international courts can do to secure such justice, and the noble Lord has outlined them. For example, in relation to the genocide perpetrated by ISIS against the Yazidi people, neither Iraq nor Syria, where the genocide took place, is a party to the Rome statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. The ICC would therefore need the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Iraq and Syria to it, but no such referral has been made. Such a draft resolution in the case of Syria has been blocked in the Security Council, particularly because of vetoes by Russia and China, which appear to derive from their political interests in that region.
Sadly, this is not the only example of perceived geopolitical interests overriding action against genocide. Recently, the human rights academic Nathaniel Raymond—also mentioned by the noble Lord—alleged that the UK received more than two dozen briefings that the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan were preparing an assault on the city of El Fasher. Mass atrocities were highly likely. The UK was well placed, as a member of the UN Security Council, to galvanise international action, yet it did not escalate its response sufficiently—apparently because it prioritised its strategic relationship with the United Arab Emirates, a prominent backer of a rapid support force, over stronger action to prevent the anticipated atrocities in El Fasher.
Tragically, those were realised. Yet our Government continue to insist that action against those perpetrating genocide, or creating the risk of genocide, can be taken only by such international courts and competent courts. As a result, there has not been a single prosecution in this country of ISIS members for the crimes of genocide perpetrated against the Yazidi people, despite some estimates suggesting that there could be hundreds living in this country who should be prosecuted for such international crimes. China has been accused of dreadful atrocities in recent years against the Uyghur people and of systematic policies aimed at eradicating the indigenous Tibetan language, religion and cultural identity, yet the issue of genocide in the country has still not been adjudicated.
When US forces liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945, handmade signs displayed by the prisoners read “never again”. Sadly, that did not turn out to be the case. Genocide has been perpetrated again and again. The Government’s policy on genocide aims to protect and preserve the rights of people at risk of genocide and those who have suffered from it. However, this needs to be delivered. This Bill does that, and that is why I support it.
Arbitrating political arguments, as opposed to defining the hard facts and legal consequences of a given set of facts, would not be a welcome task for the court. Even if a United Kingdom court made a preliminary determination of a case of genocide, or that there existed a serious risk of genocide in, for example, the case of the Uyghurs, the relevant Secretary of State—for all sorts of good, bad and indifferent trade, political and diplomatic reasons—will have to ask whether, all things considered, it is in our national interest to make a reference under Clause 3 of the Bill. It does not take much imagination to work out what the answer is likely to be. The court will have been used to make a point over which it had no control and which it could not enforce. In reality, the court will have no power over the Secretary of State and even less over the international courts or bodies set out in Clause 3.
To take another regime, the military junta in Myanmar deserves nothing but vilification for what it has done to the Rohingya population. The Gambia brought a case to the International Court of Justice in November 2019, alleging that state-sponsored atrocities in 2017 which forced over 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh were committed with genocidal intent. In 2020, the ICJ unanimously ordered Myanmar to take provisional measures to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya and to preserve evidence. As far as I can tell, Myanmar has also been accused by rights groups of violating those orders, and it is highly unlikely that they have paid any attention to them at all. During hearings in January, the Gambia presented evidence, including testimony from Rohingya survivors, to demonstrate Myanmar’s genocidal policies. Of course, the Myanmar Government denied these allegations, arguing that the 2017 operations were legitimate counterterrorism measures rather than genocide. Eleven countries, beyond the Gambia, including the United Kingdom, have intervened in those proceedings against Myanmar. So far, so good—and all achieved, if anything has been, without the enactment of this Bill.
At the risk of being unhelpful or jumping on the cynical merry-go-round the noble Lord referred to a moment ago, neither China, Myanmar or any other possible candidate state or Government for censure will change their behaviour if this Bill becomes an Act. We need determined diplomatic, bilateral, internationally organised movement of power. What will affect China and Myanmar is sanctions, is trade being denied. The noble Lord referred to Lord Palmerston. He sent battleships to Piraeus and bombarded that city because one of our citizens had been treated in a disobliging way by the Greeks. We must get real about this. While I entirely accept what the noble Lord is trying to achieve—and yes, I can see the time—this is probably not the best way to do it.
I have seen the importance of these principles close to home. My great-uncle, Mandy Morris, was a Holocaust survivor who, as a young boy, came to Yorkshire as a refugee with his family and rebuilt his life. In Newcastle, more recently, I have had the privilege of working alongside Smajo Bešo, a survivor of the Bosnian genocide, who found refuge in the United Kingdom and has dedicated his life to education and remembrance. Most recently I attended a Bosnian Genocide Educational Trust event at Newcastle Civic Centre, which was organised and led by Smajo. What struck me most was the response of the young people who took part. They expressed their reflections on the subject through art and poetry, and their work demonstrated remarkable empathy and compassion. They understood that behind every legal definition are individuals, families and communities whose lives have been for ever changed.
Recognition cannot undo the past, and it cannot restore those who have been lost or erase the suffering endured by survivors, but truth and justice matter. A willingness to examine credible evidence through an independent legal process affirms the dignity of victims and strengthens our resolve that such crimes should never be repeated. The Bill is ultimately an expression of confidence in the rule of law. It simply asks whether, where there is credible evidence of the gravest crime recognised in international law, there should be a lawful and independent means by which that evidence can be examined and in a timely manner. In that regard, I have a question for the Minister: what mechanisms do the Government believe are sufficient to ensure timely and independent identification of the risk of genocide? The Bill also gives an opportunity to strengthen our leadership in the area of foreign policy.
As we debate this legislation, I think again of those young people in Newcastle. In many ways, the young people in Newcastle captured the ethical foundation of this Bill better than any legal text could. They understood that every life has equal worth and that indifference is never an acceptable response to human suffering. I therefore support the Bill and look forward to its careful scrutiny in Committee.
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.
In April 2016, the House of Commons unanimously recognised the atrocities committed by ISIL against the Yazidis and other religious minorities in 2014 as genocide. At first, the Government declined to act due to the lack of formal determination by the courts, itself guaranteed by absence of both legal and procedural mechanisms to lodge a case. This underlined the disconnect between the policy of reliance on a competent court, where no court possessed the jurisdiction to make such a determination.
The UK continues to supply the Israeli Government with arms and political support and has refrained from naming the atrocities in Gaza as genocidal. Meanwhile, some UK members of ISIL involved in the Yazidi slaughter remain free and unencumbered by criminal charges. The UK is failing in its international obligations under the genocide convention to prevent and to punish genocide. In his response to the atrocities debate, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, stated that although the Government agreed with the underlying objectives of the Bill, they did not support the means proposed. It is to be hoped that this Bill will be allowed to reach its final stages, but if not, that the Government will instead publish their own Bill to meet the underlying objective, and in so doing meet their international obligations.
It is easy when we can identify genocide, as we have in China, Myanmar and the Congo, and are currently doing in Sudan, but what do we do when a friendly state goes rogue? There is plenty of evidence of the UAE arming the RSF in Sudan and we do not say a peep about it. What about Israel, which has fallen into the hands of an extreme right-wing Government who are committing serious crimes against people? There has been a lot of silence in this House about that—a sort of omertà where everyone is frightened of being accused of being an antisemite when we are calling out things that we happily call out in other places.
I particularly want to talk about the Yazidis. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I met the war crimes unit of the Metropolitan Police. It was very interesting and it made me wonder. Will the Minister say what kind of training the Met Police unit is getting? Does it meet sufficiently the Foreign Office and the atrocity unit that certainly used to exist within the Foreign Office? I hope it continues to do so.
This country saw quite a number of young people going off to ISIL, the Islamist terrorist organisation. Some returned. We know that several hundred did. Most of them have been prosecuted and jailed, but they were prosecuted for membership of an international terrorist organisation. The horrors of ISIL were the slaughter of many hundreds of Yazidi men and boys and the enslavement of women and girls, the constant and repeated rapes that they experienced, their impregnation, the way in which they have suffered the consequences, the trauma of that and how ongoing it is. Yet we asked the war crimes unit whether it ever asked any of those who returned, “What were your domestic circumstances there? Did you have a wife? Did you have a second wife?”, but I am not sure it did. I want to know what kind of training is going on about genocidal behaviours. Did we ever find out how it was possible for Germany, along with Amal Clooney, to charge and convict people of genocidal crimes, and what makes the difference in its law?
I recommend the Bill to the House. It will make a change. It will be another brick in the wall that we are building for justice.
Whatever conclusion courts ultimately reach, these crises expose the same fundamental weakness: that legal processes move more slowly than the atrocities they are intended to address. This is why the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, matters. It does not ask Ministers or politicians to determine whether genocide has occurred but gives practical effect to the Government’s long-standing position that genocide is a matter for competent courts by providing timely judicial mechanisms through which evidence can be assessed while there is still time to prevent further atrocities.
International courts can take years, sometimes decades, to reach their conclusions. By then, the victims are dead, communities are destroyed and the opportunity for prevention has long passed. This Bill may not prevent genocide, nor can it overcome the geopolitical divisions that so often paralyse the international community, but it would strengthen the United Kingdom’s authority and its ability to fulfil its obligation under Article I of the genocide convention, not merely to punish genocide after the event but to try to prevent it before it reaches its murderous conclusion.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government make unequivocally clear that the United Kingdom stands firmly behind the International Criminal Court, its independence and its officials in the face of the threats now being directed against it? Secondly, what urgent steps are being taken to prevent the atrocities feared in El Obeid becoming another El Fasher? Thirdly, what measures are being taken to ensure that the United Kingdom does not become complicit, directly or indirectly, in the atrocities that may ultimately be found to constitute genocide in Gaza and Sudan?
History’s greatest failures have seldom resulted from ignorance. More often, they have resulted from a failure to act on what was already known. Srebrenica stands as a permanent reminder of the cost of that failure. The Bill seeks, in a modest but important way, to ensure that we do not repeat it.