Ukraine: International Claims Commission Convention

My Lords, I thank the main drafter of this report, Samantha Granger, who worked tirelessly to produce this scrutiny document against a very tight deadline. I also thank Dominic Walsh and his team—I am sure I say that on behalf of all the committee—who provide first-class support to the committee. Of course, I also thank my colleagues and members of the committee, some of whom are here today; we just finished our weekly meeting. Everyone engaged thoroughly with the process and contributed fully to the report’s final conclusions in one way or another. I pay a special tribute to the witnesses, who gave up their time to assist us with this inquiry. I will be honest: my initial thoughts around this treaty were that it was potentially a symbolic gesture but that it would yield little fruit. Although we would welcome compensation for those damaged by the actions committed by the Russians over the past few years, I thought that no real money would be forthcoming for the foreseeable future and that the exercise would have little real impact. However, I was struck, when listening to those who spoke to us, by the importance of maintaining a record, assessed against clear evidence, of the harm and atrocities committed by the Russians on the people of Ukraine. The recorded claims submitted so far to the registry run to more than 150,000 in number, but the statistics, as is often the case, mask the systematic brutality of the Russian state against defenceless civilians and their property. I add that the number is estimated to be a fraction of the real damage done. During the writing of this report, and since its publication, I have been approached by people involved in the Ukraine conflict, and the anecdotes they have shared with me about the behaviour of the Russian state are chilling, to say the least. The committee found that, although there remain significant questions to be answered about where funds would come from to pay compensation—we highlighted that Russia was an unlikely collaborator in any formal outcome in the short or medium term—the simple acts of recording and assessing transgressions were in themselves very important actions that would enable the victims to have a sense of justice and be a vitally useful process in enabling Ukraine to settle in a post-war future. 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.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and all other members of the committee for the work that they have done on this issue. I also thank the witnesses who came forward. I declare my unpaid interest as an ambassador for the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. We have done an enormous amount of work with women and men from Ukraine. We have had a number of delegations come here to meet the Government and other people of influence. That has been very important. I welcome the Convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine, as well as the Government’s support for its swift ratification. As noble Lords know, I have a long-held interest in the women, peace and security agenda. I believe that the establishment of this commission matters a great deal. Lasting peace in Ukraine cannot be built on a foundation where the victims are asked to carry the human and economic costs of aggression without recognition or redress. We know that the scale of the task is immense. The register of damage has already received 150,000 claims—indeed, even more as we speak today. The suggestion is that the final number of claims could go as high as 10 million. I have met organisations from both inside and outside Ukraine that are keeping lists of all these claims. The way in which people—including men, women and young boys—have been abused is disgraceful. I will mention later in my speech something I would like to look at. I know that the Treasury has heard this from me before, but we should look at the interest on the money that we are holding on behalf of Russians and others—perhaps even some people from the UK. We need to look at this issue and talk about it. At the moment, we are saying, “The Foreign Office is looking at it”, but this issue is becoming really important as the situation continues. As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, mentioned, we are not necessarily going to get much support from the United States, so we must work with Europe. We also have to think about the fact that the one thing some people are looking at and taking away is the intellectual property of Ukraine. Its minerals must not be part of the deal. The minerals belong to it, as does the interest. 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.

My Lords, the report from your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, might seem something of a no-brainer in recommending support for the Government’s intention to join the Council of Europe’s Convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine. Indeed, it is, and our chair has very ably introduced our feeling that it is a no-brainer. There is no serious doubt about Russia’s aggression against Ukraine regarding both its surreptitious seizure of the Crimea in 2014 and the more blatant invasion in 2022. Both were contrary to the UN charter and many other binding international agreements, including the Budapest memorandum—signed by Russia itself, along with this country and the US—which guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. There can be no serious doubt either, as both noble Lords who spoke before me made clear, about the massive material losses resulting from these acts of aggression, not to speak of the loss of life. Is this attempt to assess and compensate for those material losses through an international commission unprecedented? No, it is not. After Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Kuwait in 1990, just such a compensation commission was set up by the UN Security Council in 1991, which brought about massive compensation for the damage done. Only Russia’s abusive threat of its Security Council veto stops that route being followed again in this instance, and the pattern set in 1991 has been carefully followed and applied in this later instance. It is important to note, therefore, that, unlike the unhappy Versailles precedent after the First World War, there is no question of going beyond the compensation for damage to cover also reparations for aggression. A word of explanation is perhaps in order for our report’s reference in its paragraph 70 to the risk of expectations being raised which cannot be realised—which the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, also referred to. That is not included out of any doubt as to the justice of Russia being required to pay compensation, but merely because of Russia’s obdurate refusal to recognise any responsibility for the damage it has inflicted on its neighbour. The determination of those pursuing the Yukos/Khodorkovsky cases and their pertinacity have shown just how far, and how successfully, these matters can be pursued through international tribunals. It is to be hoped that the convention Britain is hereby joining will demonstrate equal determination in the years ahead. 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.

My Lords, I too thank the committee for this excellent report and agree that the claims commission is not perfect—I was involved at the initial stages of its inception—but I am very glad that we are supporting this initiative as a nation. The claims commission is an integral part of the web of comprehensive accountability that Ukraine is weaving. As I have been fortunate enough to observe over the past four years how this is being done, I want to share an up-to-date brief that I have received from the Office of the Prosecutor General—so, the Attorney-General—of Ukraine which gives some further information about the web that is being woven. I was involved first as Attorney-General and, since the election, I have been involved deeply as a volunteer teacher of Ukrainian lawyers in international law, which is something I continue to do. I want to praise those lawyers, all of those whom I have taught have active war crimes cases, for their fortitude and openness to concepts of international law which are not necessarily taught to them at university or which they have necessarily practised in their careers. They are pursuing this international justice to a high level and it is very impressive. There are various pillars to go with the claims commission, which are important to the way that this work is carried out. First, 99% of these war crimes prosecutions will be national investigations. They will be prosecuted in Ukraine and documented, investigated and prosecuted in local courts. That is as it should be. In international law, we know that if a state is willing and able to do its prosecutions, it should do them itself. There are real innovations going on in the spaces of ecocide, for example—not a word we knew until four years ago—as well as prosecutions for cyber attacks and for the systematic destruction of infrastructure that Russia has perpetrated in Ukraine. 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.

My Lords, that was a powerful and valuable speech from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, relying on her experience and her contacts. I was particularly impressed by the personal examples. We probably all know individual Ukrainians in this country who have suffered. As the last Back-Bencher in the debate—story of my life—I fear that everything that can be said has been said, but not everyone has said it, so here goes my contribution. I begin by adapting Yaroslavsky: we are witnessing the grand patriotic war of the Ukrainian people. Patriotic? Yes. Putin claimed that the Ukrainians were just cousins, or indeed part of the Russian people, but they have shown that he has provoked a very profound patriotism among the people, who have shown enormous courage and resilience. I was at NATO headquarters on the eve of the aggression in 2022. I must admit to the Committee that the consensus appeared to be that, if there were an invasion, Russian troops—better resourced, and with a degree of morale—would be taking Kyiv within two or three days. That, happily, was not to be. This debate now is about making Russia recognise and possibly pay for its aggression. Two main areas of concern were mentioned by the committee. First, there is the geographic limit and whether we should extend it to 2014, to Crimea and the Donbass. On the grounds of justice, of course, that should happen and there is the possibility of an amendment to the convention. However, the demands of justice, in my judgment, conflict with practicalities. The areas concerned are currently occupied by Russia, and they are likely to remain so in any ultimate settlement. Therefore, there are formidable problems; they have to be visited to assess and evaluate claims. The evidential problems are enormous. The second area of concern relates to the prospect of achieving what we all would like: the extent of the compensation. There is a proposed three-stage process. The register is extremely valuable, but hopefully it will not just be a historic document. The commission will have to recognise categories, and presumably lawyers will have to work out standardised categories. There is then the assessment of the claims. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, has given some indication of the vast accumulation of claims, which will make even the most assiduous lawyers work for very many years to come. 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.

Before the noble Lord sits down, I want to raise one point to which he referred: the large number of people who were compensated by the Iraq-Kuwait compensation commission set up by the UN Security Council. There were many hundreds of thousands of them, because workers from Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and the Philippines were all grievously damaged and lost huge amounts of money, and they were all compensated by the commission. It was not the case that the Iraq commission dealt simply with the oil and the damage created by it being spilled, although it did do that; it also resulted in lots of very poor individuals receiving full compensation.

I hear the noble Lord, but I think he would agree that the amounts and numbers involved are vastly more in the case of Ukraine than was the case of the relatively simple—as compared with Ukraine—precedent of Iraq and Kuwait.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I appreciate the decision of the committee to ask for this matter to be debated. As President Zelensky said in 2023 in The Hague: “There can be no peace without justice”. The Council of Europe is on a twin-track at the moment regarding holding Russia to account through the creation of this commission for civil accountability, as well as the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, to cover criminal culpability, going beyond what the ICC can do, as my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis set out. My noble and learned friend has already received praise, but I will repeat some of that. I pay particular tribute to the work that she did when she was the Attorney-General in initiating a lot of the work that is going into this special tribunal. More broadly, we can all be proud of the fact that the British Government—whether the previous Conservative one or the current Labour one—have been a leader on accountability. I am a member of the delegation to the Council of Europe—I must say that I am slightly surprised that I am the only one here today debating this—and I can assure your Lordships that this really matters to the Ukrainian delegates. We had our plenary session last week, and, understandably, after the UK Government led the action to kick out Russia from the Council of Europe, this is a really important place for Ukrainian MPs to vent their concerns and to inspire us to keep going. That is why earlier this month it was good to see another important milestone in the development and operation of the register of damage, which met for the seventh time earlier this month. Once there are sufficient ratifications, the register will be folded into the claims commission. It was good to hear the tributes paid to our ambassador, Sandy Moss, as he was stepping down from the bureau, having helped steer the register and the convention forming the commission. It is worth reading out his comments at the latest meeting—he has been chair of this steering group. He said: “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.

My Lords, I am grateful for the indulgence of the chair and the committee for the opportunity to speak in the gap in this important debate. I express at the outset gratitude to our chair for his role in the presentation of this report as well as for his opening remarks, and of course to the secretariat, which assisted us in the course of our deliberations. The establishment of an International Claims Commission for Ukraine strengthens a broader moral and legal principle. Where aggression causes mass harm, victims should have a structured route to truth, recognition, compensation and restitution. The Ukraine mechanism builds on a Council of Europe register of damage, and it is intended to assess claims for damage, loss or injury caused by Russia’s internationally wrongful acts. That is the first point that I want to draw to the attention of the Minister and to seek a response from her on. The role of the Minister’s department and her personally in driving forward this treaty and all that flows from it is a welcome one. However, it is important to recognise that Russia’s wrongdoing is international. She has been at the forefront—she spoke on this only this week and indeed last week—of highlighting the tragedy currently unfolding in Sudan. Russia is an active participant in that country, with a view to obtaining access to its gold and rare minerals. The fact of the matter is that the reconstituted Wagner Group is playing an active role on the ground, fomenting and fuelling the conflict. During the last Conservative Government, as the chair of the Sir Winston Churchill Archive Trust, I was privileged to be present at an awards ceremony for the President of Ukraine, which had been initiated by the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. At the reception, I met Ukrainians who were witnesses to the activities of the Wagner Group, which they had seen operate on their own territory as well as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The group is also present in the Sahel. 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.

My Lords, I thank the International Agreements Committee for its work and its chair for his introduction; I also thank the members of the committee who have contributed. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, looking at the wider international issues that flow out of this is something we should definitely acknowledge. I was privileged to be a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe between 1999 and 2005. That is a long time ago, I know, but where we are now started then. At that time, I was a rapporteur in the release of political prisoners from Azerbaijan—we were somewhat successful, at least for the time being—and a co-rapporteur on the investigations into the Khodorkovsky and Yukos affair. I also witnessed the extinction of opposition among Russian parliamentarians. When I arrived in 1999, there were members of Yabloko—the liberal party—as well as independents and opposition Communists. All of them spoke out against the Russian Government freely in the Council of Europe. By the time I left, though, they had all gone. They disappeared. The only ones there were Putin’s stooges. I have to say, at the time, I was also shocked that the Conservative Party left the Conservative group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and joined Putin’s group, which was under the leadership of one of Putin’s Members of Parliament. I found that shocking. It was actually reversed by David Cameron when he was the Prime Minister. As noble Lords will probably gather, I am a bit of a champion of the Council of Europe and of what it does and stands for, and I think that this convention is exactly the kind of thing that the Council of Europe can do well. After all, it has 46 member countries across Europe, and it is always fighting for justice and for human rights. It is interesting that not only has this committee given us a recommendation, but, of course, the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee is chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. Clearly, he and his committee have been instrumental in carrying this forward within the Parliamentary Assembly. I certainly welcome, first of all, the initiative by the council and the Government’s participation in it, and I recognise the reservations that the International Agreements Committee has made, even though it has acknowledged that those are not reservations that justify not going ahead with this. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, made the point about where the money will come from, and the worry that it might lead to disappointment or become a white elephant, as other people have said, but I do not think at this stage that that is the right mood to take. First, the actual quantification of the scale of the destruction, humiliation and damages is worthwhile. It is important to say to people, “Perhaps you will never get reparation,” but even quantifying it and organising it is in itself a process that has some validity. On that basis, I believe it is well worthwhile. I pick up the point that in reality, probably the only realistic source of funding is seized Russian assets. I accept the arguments, or the reservations, but I have to say that the damage and destruction that Russia has done—and is trying to do—to Europe, Africa and elsewhere should not be unpunished and uncompensated for. Actually, by my figures, those assets are nothing like enough. There is an estimated $300 billion of Russian assets in Europe, and about £25 billion, I think, in the UK. The World Bank’s rapid damage and needs assessment estimates the total damage between February 2022 and December 2025 at $195.1 billion, but a 10-year recovery plan would cost $587.7 billion, so that $300 billion would meet only half of that estimated damage. Even if there is a peace settlement—and I realise we have no idea how, when and whether that might happen—it seems that Russia has to be held accountable, not to the extent that we did with Germany in Versailles but to a realistic extent, to say, “You can’t do this kind of damage and just walk away and expect everybody else to pay”. I argue that that is the right thing. The register was created in May 2023, and steps have been followed to set up the register and then the convention. The Government have signed it, have offered support for the administration and for the cost of running it, and have said that they are going to ratify it by the end of the year, so the simple question to the Minister is: can we have some assurance that that will actually happen? I am quite certain that, in this House, there would be clear support to help it through quickly. There is a concern—I am sorry to raise this, but I think it needs to be raised—because this is an instrument of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe, of course, is the underpinning of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a serious political point: the Conservative Party is committed to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, which means leaving the Council of Europe, because, to be a member of the Council of Europe, there is a mandatory requirement to be a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, if the Conservatives are supporting this while pursuing a policy that makes the vehicle for delivering it obsolete as far as the UK is concerned, they have some questions to answer, because that would be the consequence of their decision. I hope they will think again and I hope they will not do it—I hope, actually, that they never get the chance to do it, but that is more fundamental. I know that is a hard political point, but it is a real one, and I do not think that we can just ignore it; that would be the consequence of the policy being pursued.

The secretary-general of the Council of Europe recently made a speech to the assembly stating in terms that, to be a member of the Council of Europe, you must be a member of the convention.

That is my understanding—that it is a mandatory requirement. We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, regarding the Conservative position. We have also heard from Conservative Members who are supportive. I get that: I am quite certain that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is supportive. What we need to know is: if they are supporting this convention, how is that consistent with the policy they are adopting? I am not suggesting that those who have spoken are not sincere in their support—I am sure they are—but there is an issue to be addressed. This is an initiative by the Council of Europe that gives real hope to the people who have suffered damages: it provides the ability to quantify the harm and damage, and gives a clear understanding that it may never be resolved and they may never get the money. In the end, there will be time to say whether we have or have not achieved it. But the Russian money is there and, if there is a will, at least some if not all of it could be diverted to this cause. That would make this a real and worthwhile outcome, rather than just an optimistic hope. I hope that the Government will use whatever good offices they can, both in terms of UK resources and influencing others. I believe in international law. It should be possible to prove that the damage done by Russia justifies the seizing and confiscation of those assets and does not compromise the international banking system.

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Johnson for securing this important debate. The whole committee is to be congratulated for its hard work on the scrutiny of this convention. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed, particularly my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis, whose grim litany of statistics was truly horrifying. I am very happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that it is our policy to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, and we all know the reasons for that. I am not going to pursue that point now because it would break the spirit of unanimity that there has been on this important subject. As noble Lords across the committee know, we have been steadfast in our support for Ukraine both in government and in opposition, and that reflects the UK people’s support for the people of Ukraine in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion. It is something of which we should all be proud. We are one of the few countries in the world where there is genuine cross-party collaboration and support for the people of Ukraine, against this horrific invasion. We are delighted to see the latest news, which looks a little more encouraging for Ukraine, but we will see how that pans out. The measures of support have commanded cross-party backing and show what can be done if we unite as a nation. We must continue that work. We will support this Government or the next if they continue to support Ukraine in its fight. We need to redouble our commitment. In total, so far the UK has committed £21.8 billion for Ukraine, £13 billion of that support being military, providing Ukraine with the weapons and equipment that it needs to defend itself. Here at home, I am humbled to say that the country has supported 177,600 Ukrainians through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. That has demonstrated our compassion as a nation. Ordinary Britons across the country have stepped up in Ukraine’s time of need; they have given up their spare rooms and a great deal of their time to support Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s illegal war. We should pay tribute to every one of those families that have taken part in this scheme. Today we are looking towards the future. While this war continues, we are rightly looking ahead to a future where the people of Ukraine can eventually get the justice they deserve. The convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine has been agreed to review, assess and decide on claims for compensation of damage, loss or injury caused by internationally wrongful acts committed by Russia against Ukraine. Noble Lords across the Committee will well remember the appalling scenes at Bucha and many other Ukrainian towns and villages, so we all know what appalling war crimes Russian forces have perpetrated during the war. But we have also become used to images of burned-out cars, bombed-out blocks of flats and countless homes destroyed. Millions of Ukrainians have suffered loss, damage and injury as a result of wrongful acts committed by Russia. They deserve justice, and there have been thousands of recorded instances of torture, inhumane treatment and sexual violence. As has been noted by many other noble Lords, the Council of Europe’s register of damage, established in 2023, has received approximately 150,000 claims to date, and it is thought that those claims could rise to as many as 10 million. Every Ukrainian who has suffered at the hands of Putin’s forces deserves justice, and I think the whole House can agree on that. It is welcome that the UK is playing a full role in this process with a permanent seat on the commission’s finance committee. We should continue to play that leading role in support of the Ukrainian people as a trusted voice on the international stage. We also have a powerful role to play in the pursuit of any criminal prosecutions in the conflict. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that when she replies to the debate. We know that initial funding will come from voluntary contributions from signatories. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what the UK’s contribution will be. We understand that it will be around £2.6 million in the current spending period across the register and the claims commission. Can the Minister tell us how that funding is forecast to increase over time? We would be grateful if she could provide any further clarity on those figures. Further to that, what contingency funding plans are being prepared should Russia, as indeed is very likely, never join the claims commission? We on this side of the Committee have welcomed the use of proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, and we have constantly asked Ministers about plans to go further on using the frozen assets themselves. I understand the legal difficulties of that, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and others, I would be grateful if the Minister could update the Committee on whether there is any progress on using those frozen Russian assets. I note that a number of third parties have commented on some of the limitations of the convention. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe said that it “regrets that the temporal scope of the Commission is currently limited to the damage caused … on or after 24 February 2022”, and considers that “all victims of the Russian Federation’s aggression since 2014 should be entitled to compensation”. This point was also made by other noble Lords on the committee. What thought have Ministers put into the issue of support for the Ukrainians who suffered damage between 2014 and 2022? This convention is an important step forward for the Ukrainian people. The Government are, in our view, right to continue their work to support Ukraine. I look forward to working with the Minister and noble Lords across the House as we collectively recommit ourselves to helping and supporting the people of Ukraine in their time of need.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, for making sure that we are here today to discuss this and to all those who have contributed. I particularly thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis—I have always liked her—for her work over many years and as AG. The fact she has continued that, when she does not have to, in support of the rule of law in Ukraine is really commendable. I hope the noble and learned Baroness knows how admired she is for that across the House of Lords. I am also grateful to the International Agreements Committee for its careful scrutiny under the noble Lord’s chairmanship. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has caused immense suffering and destruction. We saw this again on the night of 14 and 15 June, when Russia launched 611 drones and 70 missiles at Ukraine. More than 60 of those missiles were fired at Kyiv, in one of the largest barrages the capital has faced in the war so far. These strikes hit residential areas and civilian infrastructure. They damaged and destroyed homes and struck one of Ukraine’s holiest sites. Eleven civilians were killed and a further 53 were injured across the country, including four first responders killed in a single strike in Kharkiv. As I know noble Lords are well aware, these are far from isolated incidents. The scale of destruction and loss underlines why a just and lasting peace in Ukraine must have accountability at its heart. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who said that we should use the term “reparations”. They are an important part of what we need to do, and the International Claims Commission for Ukraine is key. We are building on the register of damage for Ukraine, which will assess claims for loss, injury and damage caused by Russia’s aggression and determine the appropriate compensation. In doing so, it will move us from recording harm to providing a credible route to redress. The UK signed the Council of Europe convention establishing the commission in December last year, alongside 35 other countries and the European Union. The commission will be an independent international mechanism, grounded in international law. It will assess claims impartially, on the basis of evidence, and in a consistent and transparent way. The commission is a vital part of the wider international effort to hold those responsible to account, alongside Ukraine’s domestic processes, the International Criminal Court and of course the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and many others mentioned expectations. It is good to talk about that; it is an important point and we have to be mindful about the way that we speak about this process. I think the mood of the committee is such that, unless we take this next step, compensation will be impossible in the end, and so we must do this. I will turn to a few things that noble Lords have said. It is always a joy to hear my noble friend Lord Boateng’s contributions, and I always welcome the inclusion of Sudan and DRC in these discussions. Clearly, many countries have to answer for their actions in DRC and, in particular, in Sudan; according to the last briefing I had, there were around 12 countries contributing to the prolonging of that conflict. This particular instrument—I know noble Lords understand this—is tightly focused on events in Ukraine since 2022. There are things that we would like to see happen—other noble Lords mentioned this as well—for other geographies and for what has happened since 2014. I completely understand why that is being raised. This is not where we are at the moment, but the fact that we are doing this provides a route to consider more widely the impact on people such as Alisa, whom the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, talked about. I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on the ECHR. It is not the position of this Government that we would leave the ECHR. I hope that that reassures him. On the specifics of how compensation will be funded, they will need to be taken forward separately with partners. Resolving this issue is crucial to making a success of this process. As of today, it has not been resolved, but noble Lords and the committee are correct that it needs to be resolved at some point. By establishing a robust, internationally agreed process for assessing claims now, we are laying the groundwork for future compensation arrangements. In other words, the claims commission is not the final step, but it is a necessary one, because without a legitimate and legally grounded mechanism to assess claims, there can be no credible route to reparations in future. This affirms a simple principle: that those who cause harm through illegal aggression should bear the responsibility for that harm. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and others asked about Russian assets. I hear the committee urging the Government to move fast to be a leader of the pack—that is how it has been described several times. Everyone in this room understands the legal complexity. The position, as of today, is that we want to continue to work internationally with our partners. Obviously, the Government will keep noble Lords updated should that change, but please know that we hear the strong desire of parliamentarians in both Houses to see progress on this issue. We are in no doubt about that at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, asked about support for survivors, particularly women—I knew that she would. I can assure her that we are doing a great deal of work, particularly on psychosocial support, not just for women of course but, as we understand all too well, women often pay the highest price in these situations, and support will be there. The assessed cost of the damage now stands at $195 billion. This is extreme and a solution needs to be found. It is important that all those who have been affected are able to access the support to rebuild their lives that they are going to need. My noble friend Lord Anderson asked about scope, which I have dealt with. He also asked about how claims will be assessed. It is going to be an incredibly difficult task. I am glad that it is not a state Government who are going to be responsible for this. There will be a commission with the expertise and ability to focus, and the neutrality to enable it to undertake this phenomenally difficult task. It will be responsible for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked when we expect to ratify. I hope that we will be able to do this by the end of the year, so I hope that by December we will have had this completed. I take her question as a note of encouragement not to delay any longer than is necessary. This convention is an important and necessary step towards justice for Ukraine. It helps to ensure that loss, injury and damage caused by Russia’s illegal aggression can be assessed through a credible, impartial and internationally grounded mechanism. That matters not only for those who have suffered so greatly but for the wider principle that aggression must carry consequences, and that those responsible for unlawful harm should bear responsibility for it. The commission is not, on its own, the end of the process—I know we all understand this—but it is a vital foundation for any future compensation arrangements, because without a lawful and robust means of assessing claims, there can be no credible route to reparations. It also sits alongside wider international efforts to ensure accountability, including through the International Criminal Court and support for Ukraine’s own pursuit of justice. As I have said repeatedly in this Room and in the Chamber, Russia must pay for the damage that it has caused. The UK will continue to stand with Ukraine in its efforts to secure accountability and a just and lasting peace.

I thank the Minister for her exceptionally helpful and thorough response. There was one small point that I asked about UK citizens and the processes around that.

That is my mistake. At the moment, this is for Ukrainian nationals only but, as with other issues that were raised, there is the potential for that to change in the future. But for now, it is for Ukrainian nationals.

That is very helpful; I thank the Minister very much. I thank all the members of the Committee who have contributed to this debate, particularly those who are not members of the International Agreements Committee but also, of course, the members of that committee. It would be wrong for me not to draw attention to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in the respect that he was the one who created the original Iraq-Kuwait compensation process. Having him on our committee was enormously helpful. Some of the comments around the similarities are also relevant but this is clearly a more significant and more destructive process. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, raised a relevant point, which is about what we forget. This is a short debate—just over an hour—and I will not prolong it any more than is necessary. But the reality is that this is an enormously significant action and there is a terrible war happening not far from this House, and it is easy to forget about it. It is not simply about a conflict situation in another country. It is about a real geostrategic and geopolitical issue that this country faces, with a significant aggressor that is active on a global scale. It is important that Members of this House and people listening to this debate realise that this is not a simple technicality around compensation—this is not an insurance claim. It is an important part of making sure that we are properly defended in the nature of how we are engaging with these threats as well. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Prentis for her comments. The work that she does is laudable. Using international law, which is what we stand for in this House, to make sure that people have compensation and to help them achieve the redress they need, is absolutely vital. We should also not forget a comment she made. This is not simply about a dry process. The reality is that hundreds of thousands of people have lost their homes and livelihoods. We need to find the money to rebuild those homes, so that people have somewhere to live. My final point is to express the support of the committee for the principle of recording and ensuring we can find some way in which to compensate people for the losses they have had as a result of this brutal conflict. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords for their engagement, particularly the Minister.