On 17th July 2026, the Bishop of Newcastle spoke at the second reading of the Genocide Determination Bill, expressing her support for the bill and the principle of the equal worth of human lives:
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: 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.
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.
Extracts from the speeches that followed:
Lord Katz (Lab, Government Whip): 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.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): I cannot, and should not, take all the time that might now be left, but Mr Justice Kirby, a brilliant Australian jurist, was asked by the United Nations to chair a commission of inquiry into human rights in North Korea. He found that there had been crimes against humanity. He said it was a “state without parallel” and should be taken to the International Criminal Court. Guess what—it never has been, and the United Kingdom, to its shame, has never asked the Security Council even to consider the request of a commission that was established by the United Nations and found conclusively that there are crimes against humanity. I disagree with the idea that no one takes any notice of these things, because we heard evidence recently from a man called Thae Yong-ho, the number two in the North Korean embassy in London. He defected and told me that the reason he left was that he had often come to Parliament and was so taken by our beliefs, our system of democracy and our rule of law. He said that when the commission of inquiry made the decision that they could be arraigned for crimes against humanity, a frisson of fear spread through the upper echelons of the regime in North Korea. The relief, he said, was palpable when it was decided that nothing was going to be done about it.
That is the challenge to us: to do something about it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle said that this is an opportunity to strengthen law. My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, a former Minister, said that we cannot go on repeating the same mantra about a competent court when there is not one to do it. My noble friend Lady D’Souza said that this is a focused Bill that is urgently needed. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said that there should not be exceptions, whether they are our friends or foes, and I agree with her. She pointed to the German precedent of a court able to determine a genocide—not against a German citizen, but someone who committed genocide against Yazidis. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, pointed to Clause 3 and the failures of international institutions. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, asked what is the point of recognition without consequences, and I agree with her.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.