Ukraine: International Claims Commission Convention

As some noble Lords may raise in this debate, we were very aware that the claims commission, by commencing in 2022 rather than in 2014, was missing a huge array of crimes and potential compensation claims, but we accept that this was born out of practical concerns at this stage. The claims commission preserves the possibility of an extension of its scope to 2014, and I invite the Minister to clarify whether the Government support such an extension. We also draw Members’ attention to the fact that British citizens are entitled to lay claims, but the system has not yet been adjusted to allow for this in practice. Can the Minister comment on that, since there are some well-reported anecdotes of British citizens who have been significantly affected by the conflict?

To return to the basic realities, we were also aware, as we no doubt all are, that the source of funds has not been properly established. We would have wished this to be the case to make the compensation process clear and meaningful. I was concerned that the USA is not currently a full participant and, as such, that a brokered peace deal may terminate these claims and compensation processes. The commission, in its effectiveness as a method of directing money to those affected, is lacking in real power. The Minister may wish to comment on that.

However, in conclusion, all the witnesses were clear that the first two stages of the endeavour—to record claims and then to establish monetary compensation—were in themselves a valuable act that, with a relatively limited and controlled contribution from the UK, was an important part of our role as a global power. To this end, we endorse our collaboration in this process and hope that the people of Ukraine will eventually receive redress and that the state of Russia will be held responsible for its gross transgressions of international law and the established laws of conflict. As a result, I recommend this report to the Committee. I beg to move.

The commission will provide the essential next steps for those who have suffered or suffer still in Ukraine by assessing their claims and determining the compensation that is due. We must also think about the fact that some of these people will be dead by the time their claims are assessed. Look at what is happening in other parts of the world where we see similar situations.

There are now thousands of documented cases of human rights abuses, including torture, inhumane treatment and sexual violence. We have also heard about people who have experienced sexual violence having guns left by their side, as though they are being told, “This is your present for letting us”. Conflict-related sexual violence must be addressed explicitly because the women, girls and men who have been subjected to this grievous crime face significant stigma, trauma and displacement, alongside the complications of the loss or lack of evidence and records. For those people in particular, the process must be confidential, accessible and trauma-informed. The evidential requirements must reflect the realities of war, rather than placing an impossible burden on survivors.

Similarly, the children who have lost their parents, homes or access to education—every day that a child goes without education cannot be made up—must be able to have the full extent of their harm recognised. I say this particularly because children are now being educated underground, because nowhere else is safe. They are not sure what they are going to come out to at the end of their education each day.

The commission must not forget that Ukrainian women’s organisations and survivor-led groups have invaluable knowledge of the realities of the war. I hope that they will be consulted directly, especially regarding the procedures, outreach and support for survivors.

I am glad that the United Kingdom’s contribution will support the commission’s operation. However, as we know, the separate compensation fund from which awards would be paid has yet to be established. Can my noble friend say how the Government will support the meaningful participation of women survivors in designing the claims process? We know who the women and the groups are, but we must make sure that they are at the table. What practical steps are being taken with international partners towards establishing a credible and durable compensation fund?

This convention is an important expression of international solidarity and accountability. I hope that the United Kingdom will continue working and leading on ensuring that the commission delivers meaningful justice and redress to all Ukrainians who have been harmed.

It is frequently said that we now live in a world where might is right and the rules of international law can be flouted with impunity by great powers. This is a chance to show that that is not so, so let us not miss it, and let us praise the Government for sending this forward for ratification.

The figures are frankly staggering. The latest brief I have received from the Office of the Prosecutor General shows that 268,957 files have been opened in the war crimes space, getting on for 18,000 civilians have been killed, almost 46,000 have been injured and new prosecutions are opening every day. For war crimes against children, the office has issued 234 notifications of suspicion, which includes, sadly, 190 forced deportation cases, and has convicted 39 people. I remind all noble Lords present that this is unprecedented. To prosecute during an active conflict has never happened before and it should be welcomed. Conflict-related sexual violence on both men and women is never something we have managed well in the international court fora, or always domestically, but it is notable that the office has issued 96 notifications of suspicion and that 27 Russians have already been convicted.

The next pillar I want to mention is accountability for the crime of aggression. The Ukrainians view this very much as the anchor case going forward and take it very seriously. There have been 346 convictions under this alone in Ukraine, but we also have the work of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, which is designed to complement the ongoing work of the International Criminal Court. The tribunal is specifically seeking to fill the jurisdictional gap relating to the invasion itself, which the ICC cannot prosecute.

Co-operation with international justice is very important to Ukraine. The country has now ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC and brought Ukrainian law into line with international norms—for example, by introducing criminal responsibility for military commanders and incorporating crimes against humanity in international legislation. This has been phenomenally difficult to bring before the Parliament during an active war, and we should applaud Ukraine for taking that step.

As to the third pillar, cases are happening around the world. At least 27 countries are conducting their own investigation into Russian war crimes. People have been sentenced: for example, in Finland. Whatever happens to the Ukrainian prosecutions in any peace deal, these international cases will carry on. There is no stopping international justice in this space.

That brings me to reparations for loss and damage, which this report and this claims commission are centrally concerned with. These are critical. Some 276,113 residential buildings have been destroyed or damaged, along with 5,500 schools and 341 churches, including the Lavra, where I have worshipped on a Sunday—a few weeks ago, we saw the destruction of that very important religious site. I was struck by the evidence of Tetyana Nesterchuk before the committee. She is married, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Banner. She told us very powerfully that, if Ukraine is to rebuild, its citizens must have places to live and the normal foundations of society with which to function. That is why this claims commission and the promise it holds are so important to Ukrainians at this time. She has asked me to remind those in this debate that behind all these cases are real people who are suffering.

Tetyana has asked me specifically to mention the stories of two people who have suffered very drastically at Russians’ hands. The first is called Oleksiy. He was a civilian who was tortured and raped by Russian troops in then-occupied Kherson. I quote from his letter to Tetyana:

“I am one of those for whom the register of damage is not just a legal mechanism, but my last hope for justice—my last hope for future reparations, accountability and the restoration of my human dignity”.

He goes on in his letter—which was unsolicited, but he clearly feels very strongly about this—to praise the register, which is what we used to call the claims commission, for three reasons: it preserves the evidence of atrocities, it recognises human suffering and it lays the foundations for justice. Tetyana has asked me to mention briefly the case of Alisa, who is also a survivor of sexual violence. Her rape took place in 2014—so of course it is not currently covered by this claims commission—when she was only 27 years old. She describes justice as a “slow horse”, but she too speaks of the hope given by this register of damage.

I am very pleased that we are signing up to this claims commission. I am pleased to see a piece of work that began as a twinkle in the eye lead to something that is real and meaningful. What is the Minister’s view on whether the UK should lead the pack on freezing Russian assets, on looking at ways to use interest payments and on working out ways to make sure that this register can be meaningfully backed up with money—or we should we merely stay part of the pack? Personally, I feel that we have a strong tradition in this nation of justice following war, and we need to be leading other nations in this matter.

The final and most difficult part is the problem of payment. An enormous problem is posed. It is most unlikely that Russia will put up its hands and accept responsibility or pay anything voluntarily. Even the second stage raises formidable tasks in terms of assessment.

Turning to the point the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made about the precedent of Iraq, with all respect to the noble Lord, for whom I have great admiration, there is no great difficulty in distinguishing the Iraq problem. In Iraq, we were dealing with a defeated country. It was not difficult, therefore, to assess the portion of the oil receipts of Iraq that could be used for compensating far fewer people. It was not the extent or the complexity that we have now. So the precedent, in my judgment, is not as helpful as we would like.

In the case of Ukraine, it is not likely that either side will triumph—there will not be a victory for either side—so where is the money to come from? Vast sums are involved. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, has given an indication of the likely sums. The only potential source is likely to be the frozen assets held by western banks, which are, I agree, very substantial, including $9 billion in UK banks. But there are problems legally about this. It could set a very poor precedent for other states or individuals who deposit money in our banks. Here, we also have sovereign immunity.

It may be extremely difficult to obtain a consensus to achieve an agreement on defreezing those assets. Therefore, the demands of justice may not be attainable. I recall that we, as a committee, were urged not to use “reparations” —that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I think—but instead to use “compensation”, which is a far less loaded term. Does anyone with a sense of history consider Russian agreement likely for such a proud nation? Equally, the United States is likely to ensure that any agreement or a settlement may have some territorial concessions, particularly given the warm relationship between President Trump and President Putin, but it is unlikely to lead to the sort of outcome we would all like. Similarly, China could of course use its limited influence in this field to side with Putin.

I concede that that would be a most unfortunate conclusion and against all justice. However, after the immense efforts, the costs and the work of all those experts—possibly extending over a decade or more, given the size of the claims that they have to consider—it may be that no money will ultimately accrue to the poor claimants who have suffered so much. We should be aware from the outset that there is a great danger of that. Now, the sceptics will argue this, and they may be proved right at the end of a long period. As we say in the committee’s report, expectations may, alas, not be realised.

“To truly deliver for Ukraine and its people, we must work collectively to achieve three things: ensure that every Ukrainian, both inside and outside the country, knows about the Register and how to submit a claim; establish the Claims Commission as soon as possible to provide clarity and tangible progress for what comes next; and secure global participation to demonstrate that accountability is backed by a broad international coalition standing with Ukraine. Ultimately, the Register is about people—every loss must be recorded—and our responsibility as a Conference of Participants is to provide unwavering political support and strategic direction. I am confident that Conference members will continue working together to build an effective and credible compensation mechanism that delivers compensation for Ukraine and its people, reminding the world that we will stand with Ukraine and pursue accountability and justice for as long as it takes”.

I am sure that we all think that those words were very worthy of being spoken on behalf of the United Kingdom.

The committee’s chair asked a number of questions. I will not repeat them but I have one very specific question to the Minister. Only six countries so far have ratified. When will the UK’s letter of ratification be deposited? I know the Government are working at an unusual pace to get this ratified—that is a compliment, by the way—but the people of Ukraine need this and we need to get on with it. Slava Ukraini.

I do hope that, in putting forward this important initiative in relation to an international claims commission for a European country, we will see a similar degree of enthusiasm, determination and drive to ensure that international law is upheld in Sudan. I also hope that those who are responsible for the harm and loss being suffered by the Sudanese people will be similarly pursued and brought to justice, with compensation sought for these people. I say this because we need to be consistent in our concern for the application of international law; that has not always been the case. I hope that the Minister will use her considerable talents and those of her department to make sure that the issue of reparations in Sudan is also addressed.

My final point is that, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, said, we need to be the leaders of the pack here. If we are to do that, we need to be ethically consistent. This means that we are going to have to respond to the work that is being done in the UN as we speak on looking at the wider historical injustices that have occurred in the past as a result of colonial aggression. We will be strengthened in leading the pack on current issues in relation to Ukraine if we are ethically consistent in our response to the demands made by Barbados and Ghana, which are backed by a large number of countries—the majority of the United Nations, in fact—in terms of looking for restitution and reparation for historical crimes.