International Special Tribunal: Ukraine

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

00:00

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of an international special tribunal on crimes of aggression in Ukraine.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The motion should refer to “the crime” rather than “crimes”. It should be singular because this debate is about the crime of aggression. I think it might have been amended to the plural by the Table Office, but I very much hope that we can keep the crime of aggression as the topic for this debate.

It is 15 months since we last had a debate on the crime of aggression and the potential merits of a special tribunal on Ukraine. On 9 May 2023, I opened a debate in this Chamber some 15 months after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022. It is easy to forget the shock that many of us felt two and a half years ago when we woke up on 24 February to discover that our intelligence agencies had been right all along in their forecasts and that the Kremlin had deployed more than 150,000—some think nearer 200,000—of Russia’s armed forces personnel across the border into Ukraine. It is that original decision and original aggression on which this debate should focus.

The crime of aggression is defined as

“the planning, preparation, initiation or execution by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State”.

It is called a “leadership crime”, because under the Rome statute criminal responsibility is limited to

“a person in a position…to direct the political or military action of a State.”

The key thing about the crime of aggression is that it is the original sin—the leadership crime from which flow other international crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

If Members have looked at newspapers this week, they may have seen that there has been press attention on Putin’s visit to Mongolia and suggestions that Mongolia should heed an International Criminal Court arrest warrant to transfer Putin to The Hague. That arrest warrant relates to an alleged war crime: the unlawful deportation of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation—like other war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine, that would not have occurred had it not been for the original aggression.

When I addressed the previous Government 15 months ago, I said to the Conservative Minister that the special tribunal should be as international in character as possible, because a national tribunal based on Ukrainian law, or a regional tribunal, would not be sufficiently international in character for the personal immunities—which relate to Heads of State, Foreign Secretaries and Presidents—to be disapplied.

The preference of G7 members has been for the creation of a Ukrainian court using Ukrainian law but based in The Hague, but the problem with such a proposal is that if the special tribunal is part of a domestic legal system, none of the international elements of the tribunal will apply. As Head of State, Putin would have immunity in a foreign domestic court. Only Russia would be able to waive that immunity. Foreign Ministers and diplomats also have a similar personal immunity under the domestic courts of other countries, such as Ukraine.

With the Minsk agreements, we saw a willingness on the part of the Kremlin to accede to some demands only to row back on those agreements subsequently. In any future negotiation we cannot have some sort of bargaining or bartering away of personal immunities in favour of a political agreement that the Kremlin can then renege on, as it did before. Immunity applies to Heads of State and Governments for acts performed in the exercise of their functions, even after they have left office, and as such they should be dealt with by an international court at an intergovernmental level.

Fifteen months ago, the then Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister stated that the UK Government did not have a definitive view about whether a special tribunal should be a Ukrainian court established with international support or a fully international court. They said at that time that all options were on the table. Previously, the UK has traditionally held the position that only the UN Security Council has the power to disapply personal immunities, but clearly that idea would not fly given that Russia has veto power over any Security Council resolution.

The Minister responsible for Europe, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was present at the debate 15 months ago in his capacity then as a shadow Minister. He asked the Conservative Government about immunities and said they were a

“critical issue…that we would need to address in any model”—[Official Report, 9 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 114WH.]

of a special tribunal.

In February this year, an international conference to consider a special tribunal took place just across the road from here, at Church House. The communiqué from the conference referred to the merit of a strictly international tribunal or a highly internationalised tribunal having key international features: an international agreement; reference to international law for the purposes of jurisdiction; significant international components, such as prosecutors, judges and venue; and firm international backing, where possible, from international and regional organisations. The communiqué said:

“We believe this would offer the best hope of disapplying relevant immunities and give a tribunal full legitimacy, and complement the ongoing work of the ICC (in investigating alleged acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Ukraine).”

The effect of lifting immunities could relate to that most precious thing for any tyrant: their reputation. The late Paddy Ashdown visited Slobodan Milošević several weeks before NATO military action against Belgrade in 1999. Lord Ashdown commented that Milošević

“seemed more frightened by the threat of indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, than...of NATO bombing”.

Twenty years ago, at the height of liberal interventionism by what at the time we called rather grandly “the international community”, Lord Ashdown reflected on international justice in relation to war, writing that

“these new courts and tribunals, which the world has established in recent years...have the potential to become instruments not only for justice, but also for prevention, since they can represent a...warning to belligerent or tyrannical leaders.”

These days, there is far less talk of a “global village”, and terms like “international community” are used far less readily and do not strike a chord in the way they did 25 years ago. In February 2022, when the UN Security Council considered a resolution condemning Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, both India and China abstained. The Council of Europe is seeking to fill the gap. An international tribunal based on a treaty with the Council of Europe would be sufficiently international to overcome the personal immunities, if its founding treaty was open to any state to sign and it was ratified by at least 60 states. The involvement of the Council of Europe in the creation of a special tribunal, together with the potential accession of non-member states from outside Europe to the treaty creating such a tribunal, would contribute legitimacy to the effort to prosecute the crime of aggression committed in Ukraine.

Yesterday evening, I talked to someone else who participated in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Sir Geoffrey Nice was the lead prosecutor of Slobodan Milošević for the UN, and he wrote the following to me after our conversation:

“No self-respecting lawyer—indeed, no self-respecting human—should have anything to do with any court premised”

on

“an immunity, granted by political agreement”.

I know that this issue is of genuine interest to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing any contribution from her or from other Members about whether the UK should have a stance whereby personal immunities should be disapplied. Surely, we cannot see immunities applying for President Putin, President Lukashenko, Sergey Lavrov and other senior architects of the aggression in Ukraine.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob in their place if they intend to speak in the debate.

14:39

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing this important debate. The fact that it is the second time in a year that he has brought the issue to the House, and his first Westminster Hall debate in this Parliament, shows his and the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to Ukraine, which is unwavering, as is that of the entire House.

Like Members from all parties, I have been appalled by the violence and devastation that we have witnessed on our doorstep since Putin’s illegal invasion. Homes, schools and hospitals have been destroyed by Putin’s bombs. Communities have been turned into war zones. Although the conflict has faded from the headlines somewhat, the war wages on. Just one week ago, Ukraine was subject to an enormous air attack, with Russia launching 127 missiles and 109 attack drones overnight and into Monday morning. At least seven people were killed and dozens were wounded. The attack appeared to target Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Ukrainian MP Kira Rudik, a member of our sister party Holos, raised concerns that Russia

“keeps bringing us closer and closer to that total blackout.”

She says that homes in Kyiv do not have electricity for the majority of the day and people are really worried about how they will get through the winter.

It is clear that Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine are dangerous and destabilising. Its war is illegal and it continues to press forward with egregious breaches of international law, so I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth has raised the potential for a special tribunal on the crime of aggression. Human rights and the rule of law are at the core of Liberal Democrat values. Where there are breaches of international law, it is right that those responsible are held to account without fear or favour.

A crime of aggression consists of

“the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression”.

In the case of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, there is clearly a case to answer. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly back our international institutions like the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. Their processes and judgments should be supported.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for taking my intervention and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing this important debate. Does the hon. Lady agree that the international rules-based system has a crucial role to play and that, today of all days, the appalling attack on Poltava underlines the need for a tribunal?

[Layla Moran]

There is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said to disagree with. The world is a tumultuous place and it has never been more important to have a strong international rules-based order. Right now, it feels very rickety. A special tribunal is another way in which we can show that the international community can act in concert to bring perpetrators of injustices to account.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said so clearly, the courts are restricted in the case of the crime of aggression in Ukraine. As neither Ukraine nor the Russian Federation is party to the Rome statute, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction in the case of the crime of aggression. Given Russia’s membership of the Security Council, it would veto any efforts of that council to refer it to the court.

A special crimes tribunal would allow those responsible to be held accountable for their crimes and not escape international justice through legal loopholes. The fact that Ukraine supports a special tribunal should be reason enough to pursue one. President Zelensky said:

“If we want true justice, we should not look for excuses and should not refer to the shortcomings of the current international law, but make bold decisions that will correct the shortcomings of those norms”.

The Liberal Democrats were pleased to see the previous Government join the core group dedicated to achieving accountability for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine back in 2023, but there has been slow progress since then. Perhaps most concerningly, a lead King’s counsel suggested earlier this year that politicking within the ICC itself was halting the process. Philippe Sands KC, a leading advocate of an international tribunal, said it was

“so sad the institution that seems most opposed to this idea is the ICC in the form of its prosecutor and some of its judges. This is not an issue of principle for them, but an issue of turf.”

I sincerely hope that he is wrong in that assessment and that they will not stand in the way—nor, indeed, should anyone else. I am interested to hear what the new Minister has to say about the Government’s position and exactly what steps they are taking at a diplomatic level to advance the progress of a special tribunal.

Putin underestimates the brave resistance of Ukrainians and their commitment to their democracy, their liberty and their country. As Putin redoubles his efforts to attack Ukraine, so too must we redouble ours to stand in their defence. The spectre of a second Trump presidency has Putin rubbing his hands together. We only have one option: to stand with our Ukrainian allies as they seek to bravely resist Russia’s illegal invasion. That means working with international partners to establish a special tribunal to make sure that Putin is held to account for his crimes. As the new Government look to re-establish Britain’s place on the world stage, this is a golden opportunity to show the rest of the world that when we stand up for international law, we mean it.

14:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am a well-known advocate for Ukraine and have proudly worn a ribbon on my jacket for the last two years. I, and others, do not do that as a habit; it is a reminder for those across the world who think that things are getting better in Ukraine. The fact is that they are not.

I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for bringing forward the debate. I was happy to be a co-signatory in his request to the Backbench Committee. It is also nice to see a lot of new faces here, as well as those of some returning Members. They all stand united to support Ukraine in the world in which we live.

Wearing the ribbon is a reminder that all is not well in the world. I have often referred to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who said, “I think the world’s gone mad.” All I will say is that I think it has. The Bible refers to

“wars and rumours of wars”.

I cannot remember there being as many wars in the world as there are at this moment in time.

When I am opening a charity shop in my local high street, for example, my wearing the ribbon emboldens Ukrainian refugees—we all have them in our constituencies —to come and say that they are really pleased to see us wearing one. It is a way of encouraging the Ukrainians living in my and, indeed, everyone’s constituencies to be aware that their Member of Parliament is doing his best for them.

I also wear the ribbon because I want to remind others that steps need to be taken not simply to help Ukraine but to remind the despots in this world that there is a core value that emboldens the allies and all of us in this room collectively, irrespective of our political aspirations, to stand together. That is the cause of freedom, liberty and democracy; the right to make our own decisions.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in standing with Ukraine, as he quite rightly indicates, we should be pressing the Government to ensure the sanctions put in place are more rigidly enforced? The mistake that many in the west made did not just happen two years ago but, in fact, 10 years ago when Crimea was invaded. Unless Putin sees that the west is prepared to stand up to him, he will continue with his aggression, murder and butchery as before.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend always speaks words of wisdom, and those words are appropriate for where we are. I am not smarter than anybody else—I never profess to be—but many of us at that time thought we needed to stand up to what was happening in Crimea. We did not. I am not blaming anybody for that; it is just a fact of where we were. If we had done it then, the attacks in Donbas would not have happened with the same level of ferocity. We need to be clear on where we stand and what we are trying to do.

Like others, I have a thriving Ukrainian population in my constituency. The previous Government’s policy of letting in Ukrainians was very clear; I welcome what they did. I am pleased, by the way, to see the Minister in her place, and I look forward to her response. I do not mean to give her a big head, but she has shown a lot of confidence in the Chamber in the last few days and many of us have been impressed by how she has responded to questions. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), in her place. She and I have been friends ever since she has been here, and we look forward to her contribution.

I am happy to have helped many Ukrainians in my constituency of Strangford with visas for their time staying here, and with jobs and places in school. Ballynahinch high school in Strangford has greatly embraced Ukrainians; it has a class of specifically Ukrainian students coming from families who work in the businesses around Ballynahinch and further afield. It has teachers, classroom assistants and domestic staff from Ukraine. That is what they are doing in Ballynahinch.

I have probably talked to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry about this, but our intention is to have an event in September, or certainly in October if we are spared. The principal of Ballynahinch high school, Paul Marks, wants to organise an event where the chefs will make the meals and the pupils will serve the tables, but the guests will be those of Ukrainian descent living in Northern Ireland. I think it is a great thing to do; I know others have done it across their constituencies. It is a way of encouraging those Ukrainians and showing that they are very much in our thoughts.

I welcome the debate. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth for bringing it to the Floor to highlight not simply the plight of the Ukrainian people, but the fact that there is an onus on us all to call this issue out for what it is and take the appropriate international steps. The UN General Assembly in 1974 agreed the definition of aggression in article 1—and my goodness, we watch it every day with Russia against Ukraine. It lists some of the acts that could amount to aggression, and we could say that every one of them has happened yesterday in Ukraine or the day before that, because they have. Those acts include invasion, occupation or annexation of another state’s territory, bombardment of another state’s territory, blockades of ports or coasts, and attacks by one armed force against another. Russia is guilty of all those.

It is important to say this sometimes when we are blaming Russia. There are many good people in Russia who do not subscribe to what has happened, but they are not often heard because of the oppression that happens there. Sometimes it is good to remind ourselves that not all Russians are bad.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for saying that. I speak to our sister party, Yabloko, on a regular basis using forms of communication that it deems safe at the time. Over and over again, its brave protesters have ended up in jail. Some have had death threats, and they describe their own horror at what Putin is doing. They are keen to say that he does not speak for them but they find themselves completely silenced, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Does he agree that we should do more to raise their voices in this Parliament?

[Jim Shannon]

I do. When the Minister responds, perhaps she can give us some indication of what can be done to help those groups in Russia, as much as we can without drawing attention to them. I am conscious that it is easy for me to comment standing here in Westminster Hall, but if the Russian people we are encouraging take a stand, that may be detrimental to their future wellbeing. I am conscious of what we do, but the Minister may indicate some way in which we can do something.

It is abundantly clear that even in the most broad terms, Russia is guilty of aggression. The question is what we do with that information. This debate is an opportunity to show solidarity with Ukrainians, and to stand alongside Ukrainians both here at home and in Ukraine. Do we continue to sit on the sidelines and direct a few anti-tank missiles their way? The ones that we produce at Thales in Northern Ireland have been to the detriment of the Russian armoury, and they have been effective in every way. What makes them even more effective is that the Ukrainians have been able to adapt those weapons to take the threat and the battle straight to Russia.

I have had the opportunity, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), to visit Thales—I know that we cannot talk about some of the things we were told, so I am not saying them. However, we can see, through their bravery and courage, what the Ukrainian soldiers can do with the right weaponry. So do we send another aid package, which will help in the short term but will not end this aggression? Or do we step up and stand with the Ukrainians to push back against the actions of Putin and his regime, and allow the country to rebuild?

Along with others in this House, and as a Christian, I regularly pray for the Ukrainians, and pray that God will deliver them. Simply put, I believe that that can happen, and that is why we lift those prayers to the God who answers them. I am always minded of the story in the Bible of David and Goliath; I suggest that Ukraine is clearly the David and Russia is clearly the Goliath—and we know what happened in that battle. We pray that this battle will be one that Ukraine will win.

It has long been my opinion that we should be doing more. That is not a criticism of anybody—I do not mean it that way. I just mean to ask: what more can we do? I believe there are things we can do collectively. We can encourage the Minister, our Government and our Prime Minister to take the stand that the Ukrainians wish us to take. I believe we should be doing more, and I will use the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth to hammer home that point.

If we have an international tribunal to report what we already know to be true, it follows that we must do more than what we are doing. I am minded also of the genocide that Russian soldiers have carried out against the Ukrainians—the murder of innocent people—as well as the sexual abuse of many women and young girls. I actually find it quite difficult to even imagine—indeed, I do not want to imagine—some of the things that have happened. Abuse has been carried out against children as young as eight and women as old as 80 by Russian monsters; that is what they are.

Like the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth, I want there to be accountability. That is what everyone across this House asks for today: to have that accountability. Whoever those people are and wherever they want to hide, there will be no hiding place for them if we have anything to do with it.

I make this plea also as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I have done it before—I did it way back at the time of Crimea, because I knew what was happening there. I am a member of the Baptist church, which does not make me any smarter or any better than anybody else, but it does give me access to some of the information that flows back. In the Donbas region, some Baptist pastors have gone missing and churches have been destroyed. There is a catalogue of hate, human rights abuse, physical torture and murder by Russians against people with a different religious viewpoint from that of the Orthodox Church. I am not being critical of those of the Orthodox Church; I am just making the point that there is no accountability. People have gone missing and we do not know where they are; I suspect they are no longer in this world. Again, that underlines that Russia has a lot to answer for.

It follows that the international community must determine together that the days of sitting on the sidelines are done and that attempts not to anger Putin must end. Putin must understand that his attempted invasion of Ukraine has failed and that he must withdraw his troops. His people must look to rebuilding their own nation, which he has ravaged with this war. It is not only the Ukrainians who deserve peace, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said in her intervention—let us remember that the good people of Russia also deserve that. We must help them to achieve it as well. If there was a change of Government in Russia, it would undoubtedly bring peace within the region and let people have a life again.

In conclusion, I welcome this debate. More than that, I would welcome a determination by the UN. With every single ally determining that such action is taken, the message sent to China, North Korea and any other despotic regime would be that the UN is not a talking shop. Their guilt will make them accountable. I support the people of Ukraine and of Russia, and the motion we are debating. Let us call this what it is, and get the work that needs to be done finished—the quicker, the better.

15:00

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing this important debate. I was grateful for his co-operation in the previous Parliament on not only Ukraine but the Balkans, which is an area of particular interest to us both.

I am proud that, over the past few years, the UK has consistently led international efforts to support Ukraine. In government, the Conservative party made sure that we were the party that stood behind Ukraine and was its first port of call. In opposition, we will continue in that spirit of the UK being Ukraine’s safe harbour. Whether on pursuing justice through international tribunals, seizing Russian state assets, supporting the ICC in its investigations, enforcing sanctions, or ensuring that Ukraine has the weaponry it requires to win, the UK must continue to lead.

However, I will start on a disappointing note. I was heartbroken to hear President Zelensky say that Britain’s leadership on Ukraine has slowed down. It is vital that the new Government demonstrate the same commitment that we did; they must be resolute. It is extraordinary for another world leader to criticise the UK or to criticise any partner publicly. His words were that the UK had demonstrated

“true leadership—in arms, politics, and support for Ukrainian society”,

which had “saved thousands of lives”, but that that had now “slowed down”. The Government will have the full support of everyone on the Conservative Benches and, indeed, of the party of the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth—if they step back up to the plate. We cannot have our greatest ally question our support in any way at this time. Conversely, although the Government will have our full support if they do that, we will provide full scrutiny should such support slip.

I welcome today’s contributions by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who made a similar point, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). They have both been consistent in their support for not only Ukraine but human rights around the world.

A special tribunal on Russia’s crime of aggression would formalise Russian culpability for the invasion of Ukraine. It would prevent Putin from embedding his counterfactual narrative in history, which we should be in no doubt is what he is seeking to do. It would ensure that the brave women, men and children of Ukraine—such as Nika, from my team, who joins us in the Public Gallery—do not suffer from Russia’s attempts to rewrite their history and eradicate their truth. It would give survivors their day in court, showing beyond doubt that the world cares and listens, and that they will be heard. It would also demonstrate—as the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said—that even members of the UN Security Council are not immune from international law.

The moral case for seeking justice for Russia’s crime of aggression is indisputable, and the Government’s role is to find the legal means to deliver that. None of us should pretend it is easy; it is not, and the G7 countries have grappled with finding a way to deliver it. The crime of aggression was adopted into international law by the UN General Assembly in 1971. As the hon. Member for Strangford set out, the definition agreed by the UN makes it clear that there is a clear case for Russia to answer. Rather than repeating the list that he provided, I will just add a couple of points. The sponsorship of armed irregulars since 2014—the so-called “little green men” in Donbas—is an additional reason to bring a case against Russia. There is also a case against Belarus for allowing the use of its territory as a launch pad for the invasion.

Why a special tribunal? As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon stated, neither Ukraine nor Russia is a party to the Rome statute, meaning that the ICC cannot prosecute Russia for its acts of aggression, unlike in relation to other areas, such as Putin’s abduction of Ukrainian children. Ukraine is clear that the world must devise an alternative legal route for justice. As the initial crime led to all subsequent atrocities, ensuring accountability for it is key.

Likewise, we need to demonstrate flexibility and a determination to guarantee accountability for crimes, both to deter future breaches of international law and to strengthen it in an increasingly dangerous world. Ukraine and the principle of justice demand a solution, and the Conservative Government devoted a huge amount of time and energy to trying to deliver one: the UK is part of the core group of 40 states working on a deliverable form of tribunal; we led on the G7 proposals for a hybrid tribunal, which would solve some of the issues to do with immunity and legitimacy; and as the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said, there was a special conference in London on the topic of the special tribunal, where I contributed to the published communiqué.

The moral case for a special tribunal is clear and has a firm basis in international and UK law, and the previous Conservative Government led efforts to find a solution, but that was not straightforward. We now need to hear how this Government intend to carry on that important work. Ukraine has made it clear that a special tribunal with elements of international involvement is not possible on its territory without changes to its constitution, and it cannot deliver that during a time of martial law. Likewise, the conventional route of establishing a special international tribunal through the UN Security Council is blocked, due to Russia’s veto. Finally, a tribunal must find a form that allows Russia’s leadership to be tried in absentia—to the conversation that took place in this debate about individual culpability—and the diplomatic immunities given in domestic courts must be dealt with.

There have been suggestions about holding the tribunal in a third country, and the Dutch Government have now stepped forward and reportedly expressed their willingness to host this special court. Given that the Netherlands has a long history of hosting international human rights courts, that would seem an intelligent and practical option, but it still requires an international mandate. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron supported the Council of Europe’s work to establish a viable special tribunal in co-operation with Ukraine. Today, I urge the UK to lobby for a vote at the UN General Assembly in September to establish a special tribunal in a third country, in conjunction with the Netherlands.

Holding Russia accountable for the crime of aggression is vital, but it requires imagination and drive in the face of deeply complex legal questions. As the war approaches its third year, the form of a viable tribunal appears to be taking shape: a special tribunal, held in a third country, established by a treaty between the Council of Europe and Ukraine, and supported by a wider membership in the UN General Assembly. That is the best route to justice. The previous Government’s work got us to this point and we sincerely hope the current Government maintain the focus necessary to finish the job.

Turning to my questions, I want to ask first for an update on any discussions held with my friend the prosecutor general of Ukraine, Andriy Kostin. Has the Minister for Europe held discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart on establishing the tribunal? Do the Government support a special international tribunal held in a third country? Can they update us on any progress made by the Council of Europe on agreeing a format? What conversations are the Government having with non-European partners to secure their support for an international tribunal? What form do the Government see as best placed to solve the diplomatic immunity issues regarding Russia’s leaders? Finally, will the Minister confirm that strong representations will be made to Mongolia following its failure to arrest President Putin when he was on its soil this week?

The crime of aggression is clearly defined in international law. It includes supporting irregular forces against a state, bombardment, invasion, occupation and annexation. It is the original sin from which all of Russia’s other crimes have come and it must now be tried. A special tribunal could determine formally that Russia committed an act of aggression against Ukraine, a peaceful neighbouring state. That would cement truth into history and block Putin’s revisionist nonsense from taking root. Truth is fundamental to the future, and atrocity denial is a deliberate attack on victims and survivors. Ukrainians know that more than most, having endured years of the Holodomor denial under the Soviet Union and the continued lies by Russia. Putin understands the power of narrative and deliberately uses a warped past as a weapon to justify present wrongs. The impetus for a special tribunal on Russian aggression is therefore clear but, yes, the legal route is complex.

The Conservatives’ work in government, with support across the House and in partnership with our allies, has brought us close to a solution. We now need to see it delivered for every Ukrainian who has suffered, for the victory of right over wrong, and to set a precedent to deter other oppressor states from their own acts of aggression. I again thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth for calling this important debate. I genuinely wish the Minister every success in these efforts. These issues are complex and thorny, but we finally have a way ahead, and it seems that there is international consensus.

15:08

[The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this important debate with you in the chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing it and for his great interest in this subject over a long period, including in the APPG on Ukraine. As I am sure the hon. Member knows, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), would have been delighted to take part in the debate—they visited Ukraine together previously—but my hon. Friend is travelling elsewhere on ministerial duties, so I am here, and I am pleased to be responding on behalf of the Government.

I want to start by re-emphasising the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the need for continued cross-party support for Ukraine and our united determination to stand against Putin’s aggression. We have seen that determination and commitment from the people of the UK in their hospitality and support for Ukrainians who have come here. That has been incredibly important.

It is always a pleasure to serve opposite the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), but I want to set out from the beginning that the new UK Government’s support for Ukraine could not be clearer. As I know she is aware, the Prime Minister himself was clear that there would be a commitment from the new UK Government of military support worth £3 billion a year until 2030-31 or for as long as is necessary. That is an unprecedented commitment. Of course, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary all spoke with their opposite numbers in Ukraine within the first hours of the new Government coming into post, and we have prioritised this issue within both NATO and the European Political Community. It really is important that we continue to see that united support and that we do not see this issue being politicised. That would be a terrible shame and would not support Ukraine in its hour of need.

[Alicia Kearns]

I think that the right hon. Lady would recognise, however, that President Zelensky cannot be accused of politicising the situation. If the Conservative party were still in power, and if the right hon. Lady had heard President Zelensky say what he did, I would have heard about it every single moment of every single day. We have been courteous in raising it, and it is right to raise it, because we can never again hear President Zelensky say—as he did no more than six weeks into a Labour Government—that he is deeply concerned. I am relieved and grateful to hear the right hon. Lady’s assurances today, and I hope we can move forward in exactly that spirit of seeing the support that Ukraine deserves.

[Anneliese Dodds]

That support and that united approach are incredibly important. I will come back to the reasons in a moment, but Ukraine needs a united, continued front and, above all, for the UK to play a role not just directly in providing military support along with other nations, but in ensuring accountability, which is the subject of this debate. I was talking particularly about taking party political approaches to this issue, which the current Government avoided doing in opposition. It is important that we continue in that way; I know that the hon. Lady will want to ensure that that is the case, and I am grateful for her comments just now. As was mentioned earlier, it is also important that, where we see an increased prevalence of conflict globally—sadly, I am well aware of that as the Minister for Development—we continue to have that unified voice on the UK’s position.

Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is clearly a violation of the UN charter, and it strikes at the very heart of the rules on which our security and prosperity depend. The atrocities in Ukraine are some of the worst we have seen in Europe since world war two. Over six million Ukrainians have been forced to flee the country, over three million have been internally displaced, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that over 11,000 civilians have been killed and at least 23,600 have been injured. The attacks that we saw, disturbingly, on 26 and 27 August represent continued evidence that Russia is intentionally targeting civilian energy infrastructure, without any regard for the safety and livelihood of millions of Ukrainians. Those attacks threaten civil access to power, heating and water supply, and they risk a further humanitarian crisis this winter. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), spoke eloquently on that subject in her contribution. We also heard from the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) about concerning evidence of developments even today regarding additional instances of Putin’s aggression towards the people of Ukraine.

Overall, Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General has recorded more than 135,000 incidents of alleged war crimes, including murder, rape and the deportation of children. They appal us all. The Russian missile that hit a children’s hospital in July is yet further evidence of Putin’s callous disregard for human life. Yesterday, in the House—a number of Members here were present—we discussed the recent attacks that impacted on children in a playground in Kharkiv, as well as a children’s rehabilitation centre and orphanage.

We really need to see accountability, which Ukraine obviously wants for both those hideous atrocities and the illegal, unprovoked invasion from which these war crimes stem. I appreciated the clarification at the very beginning from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth: there is the initial illegal, unprovoked invasion and what has followed from it—he was right to separate the two.

The UK is committed to ensuring that Russia is held to account for its actions, and is leading efforts to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court and to ensure that it then takes action as an independent court. I can inform Members that the referral has secured the support of 42 other countries; it is the biggest state referral in the history of the ICC, enabling the prosecutor to proceed straight to investigation without the need for judicial approval. Having led the group referral, the UK is committed to making sure that the ICC has what it needs to continue that work. There has obviously been a financial contribution under the previous Government, for which we are grateful, including £2.3 million in additional contributions to the Court since the start of the war. That funding has increase the ICC’s capacity to collect evidence and provide enhanced psychosocial support for witnesses and survivors of the atrocities committed by Russia.

In response to the comments from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, I want to be clear that the ICC is an independent judicial institution, and it is for the ICC prosecutor to determine the nature and focus of the Court’s investigations. They are now well under way and making progress. In 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for President Putin and his children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. When we talk about indictment and the provision of warrants, I want to underline the existence of that warrant for Putin from the ICC. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, mentioned Putin’s visit to Mongolia and we have of course raised our concerns with the Mongolian authorities about their decision to host President Putin in those circumstances. We are absolutely clear that we respect the independence and the role of the ICC.

Following those initial warrants, we have also seen warrants issued in March for top Russian commanders Sergei Kobylash and Viktor Sokolov for directing missile attacks at civilian objects, including Ukrainian electricity infrastructure. In June, arrest warrants were issued for the former Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu and the chief of general staff for the Russian armed forces, Valery Gerasimov. While the list of ICC subjects is growing, it will be in the courts of Ukraine—not The Hague—that the majority of cases will be heard.

In May 2022, under the previous Government—again, we are grateful for this action—the UK established the atrocity crimes advisory group, or ACA, with the European Union and the US to provide advice and support to the office of the prosecutor general of Ukraine and to enhance capacity to investigate and prosecute war crimes through their domestic system. Overall UK funding for this work has come to £6.2 million, and UK experts have provided advice on over 100 atrocity crimes cases at central and regional levels. That work very much continues.

UK support for Ukraine’s investigations has been further boosted by the deployment of our former ICC judge, Sir Howard Morrison KC. People in this Chamber will be well aware of his eminence as an adviser to Ukraine’s prosecutor general. Let me say in response to comments from Opposition Members that that support continues. He has overseen the delivery of war crimes training to 294 Ukrainian judges, 86 prosecutors, and 19 investigators.

We support Ukraine’s calls for accountability for the crime of aggression, as well as for the decision to invade Ukraine illegally and without provocation, from which so many further crimes have followed. As we made clear in our manifesto, the new Government will support work towards establishing a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine—those responsible for the hideous atrocities we have seen there must be held to account for their actions.

Agreement on the details of the tribunal will matter if it is to be legally sound and to attract the broad international support that will be crucial to its legitimacy and, ultimately, its impact. If we want this to work, and we do, we need to get it right, so we continue to play an active role in the core group, established and led by Ukraine, to explore options for achieving criminal accountability, including through a special tribunal. As some Members will know, the group brings together many experts.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. How we think through the special tribunal and the difficulties in establishing it have been well covered in the debate. Forty of the greatest legal minds have come together to consider the issue, including Professor Akande, a member of the UN international law commission, in a group convened by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Would the Minister consider meeting the group to think through some of the complicated issues that are a part of achieving what we all want to see, which is Putin and others facing accountability for their crimes?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. UK legal expertise is already directly involved in the process through that contribution to the group, but I am sure that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, would be keen to speak to those pre-eminent lawyers to understand more about what we can do in that area. The need is clearly urgent, but we are also resolutely focused on ensuring that any tribunal has the broad international support that it needs to ensure its legitimacy.

As well as doing what we can as the UK, bilaterally we are making sure that we are working with international partners, as Members would expect. That process will need to address all the critical issues. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth raised the specific issue of Head of State immunity, which is one of those critical issues and one that we, together with partners from more than 40 states and institutions, are discussing in the core group established by Ukraine. We appreciate the necessity of holding all those responsible for this war of aggression to account.

The UK, alongside 40 other states, is also a founding member of the international register of damage for Ukraine, which allows individuals to file claims for loss, injury and damage caused by Russia’s illegal invasion. It is an important first step as part of an international compensation mechanism as well as in achieving the required accountability.

Russia must be held responsible for its illegal war in Ukraine. That includes its obligations under international law to pay for the damage that it has caused. Together with our G7 partners, we have agreed to make approximately $50 billion available to Ukraine by the end of the year by advancing the extraordinary profits generated by immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the European Union.

The critical subject of sanctions was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place. The new Government are absolutely determined to ensure that sanctions are not circumvented and that we have a robust regime. I am sure Members will be pleased to know that, very soon after the election and through the European political community, the UK managed to ensure a call to action against Russia’s shadow fleet, which has unfortunately been significant in the avoidance of sanctions. We are taking resolute action in that area.

The hon. Member for Strangford, who I thank for his kind remarks, rightly mentioned sanctions. He is right to detail the dreadful situation in Russia. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, also mentioned it. For two decades, Putin’s Kremlin has presided over a significant deterioration of human rights. That has intensified over the past two years, and we stand with those who have been impacted by it. We have been particularly concerned about those detained on political grounds—the very brave individuals who have stood for human rights and human dignity. We continue to raise cases, particularly those of British nationals. We have seen some developments, but we still see the dreadful persecution of those who have raised human rights issues.

I will round off my remarks by thanking all Members for their interventions, which have been incredibly powerful and important. I reiterate that this Government are determined to hold Russia to account for its illegal and barbaric actions in Ukraine. With Ukraine and our other partners we share the goal of securing accountability for the crimes that have been committed. We are supporting Ukraine to investigate and prosecute those responsible for atrocities, as well as supporting the investigation by the ICC. We will continue to engage in international fora, including the core group looking at the special tribunal proposals, and to actively work on those.

Tomorrow, the Lord Chancellor will be in Vilnius to attend the conference of the Ministers of Justice of the Council of Europe, where we look forward to engaging with our partners on achieving justice for Ukraine. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford rightly referred to the significance of action within the Council of Europe in that regard. We are seeking to make progress there, including this week. Together we will ensure that allegations of international crimes are investigated robustly and independently, and we will continue to stand by the brave people of Ukraine for as long as it takes as they defend not only their freedom but our shared security and prosperity.

15:26

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) took us back to first principles when he talked about freedom, liberty and democracy. It is a reminder that while we are talking about arcane legal matters, this is also a matter of the self-determination of the Ukrainian people and their ability to choose their own future. He also gave us the image of David and Goliath, and it is partly through the proposed special tribunal that it is suggested the international community could try to tip the scales in favour of David.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in the Chamber, talked about the loopholes in sanctions. He was right to do so; I was informed earlier this week that oil services companies are still actively doing business with Russian energy companies. SLB, which has UK offices at Buckingham Gate, is one such company. Essentially, though inadvertently, it is contributing funds to Moscow’s war machine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, reminded us of the important work of the core group of more than 40 states established in 2023. It is encouraging that the UK is part of that group, but we could be a more prominent voice were the Government to choose to go down that route. In addition, my hon. Friend talked about the spectre of a second Trump presidency. We know that Donald Trump regards himself as a dealmaker; he thinks of himself as someone able to broker a deal and get a compromise. When we are dealing with absolutes such as international justice and the crime of aggression, there is no room for that sort of grubby compromise, because on the line are the deaths of the 11,000 civilians that we have heard about this afternoon.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) talked about the rewriting of history by Putin, which we definitely need to be wary of. He tends to engage in historical revisionism. Even before the full-scale invasion, he was engaged in that in relation to Ukraine. In December 2019, he talked about how Poland was somehow responsible for the attack by Nazi Germany because it had laid itself open to attack by Hitler’s military machine. We need to make sure that the record of history is written correctly in relation to Russia and Putin.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford also talked about UK support for Ukraine. I think that we should be very wary of getting into party political turf wars on that one. I see nobody from the Reform party in the Chamber, but that is the only political party in this Parliament not to buy into the consensus on UK support for Ukraine—long may the solid support between political parties continue. In the last Parliament, Grant Shapps, as Defence Secretary, announced an uplift in military aid for Ukraine from £2.5 billion to £3 billion, and that was welcomed automatically. We should not seek to score political points on this issue.

Finally, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I will continue to press the Government on the point about personal immunities that I led on, and I will talk to the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who I know is very interested in this matter, too.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

For future reference, summing up is meant to be brief, but I was generous because we have plenty of time left.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of an international special tribunal on crimes of aggression in Ukraine.

15:31

Sitting suspended.