Grand Committee
Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations will make targeted and technical amendments to strengthen the operation and transparency of the register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the ROE. They will also correct a technical issue relating to limited liability partnerships, which I will refer to as LLPs.
The Government remain committed to improving the transparency of beneficial ownership as part of our efforts to tackle economic crime while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards for sensitive personal information. Noble Lords will be aware that the ROE, established by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, is a key part of that framework. It is a public register requiring overseas entities that own or purchase land in the United Kingdom to disclose information about their beneficial owners or managing officers to Companies House.
The register plays an important role in exposing ownership structures and supporting efforts to combat illicit activity. Information on the ROE has been used by law enforcement agencies, journalists and others investigating corruption, money laundering and assets held by sanctioned individuals. Last year, the Government increased public access to trust information on the ROE through the launch of the trust disclosure service on 31 August. The service allows members of the public to apply to Companies House for access to trust information held on the register. Applicants must provide their own details, together with the overseas entity’s name and identification number. While this information is publicly available, applicants must also provide the name of the trust they wish to investigate. However, the trust’s name is not publicly available on the register.
In addition, where an application relates to trust information involving a person under the age of 18, the applicant must demonstrate a legitimate interest. This requires evidence that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions breaches. Where legitimate interest cannot be demonstrated, all associated trust information is withheld, including information relating to adults. These requirements can create barriers to access and limit the effectiveness of the service. This instrument will therefore make two targeted changes to improve public access to trust information and ensure that the service operates as intended.
First, it will remove the requirement for applicants to provide the trust name when requesting information. This addresses a significant barrier, as many applicants are unlikely to know that information, resulting in applications being rejected. Secondly, the instrument will change how information is held where a trust involves a person under the age of 18. Where legitimate interest is not demonstrated, Companies House will be able to disclose trust information relating to adults while continuing to withhold information relating to the individual under 18. This will ensure that access is not unnecessarily restricted simply because a minor is connected to the trust. Information relating to those under 18 will continue to require a legitimate interest before it can be disclosed. Taken together, these changes will increase transparency and public scrutiny while maintaining appropriate protections for minors.
The instrument will also make targeted improvements to the ROE protection regime by simplifying the process for removing a residential address from the public register. Currently, individuals may apply to Companies House to have their home address removed, but they must provide supporting evidence. This protection regime helps safeguard individuals who may face the risk of violence or intimidation if their personal information is publicly available.
These regulations will remove the requirement to submit supporting evidence when applying to remove a home address from a public ROE. In most cases, the register can already verify whether an address is residential. The change therefore removes an unnecessary administrative burden. The regulations will also require applicants to provide a replacement service address for publication on the register, except in limited circumstances.
Finally, the instrument will make a limited technical correction to the LLP framework. A requirement to provide additional address information was inadvertently introduced ahead of schedule; these regulations remove that requirement for now. It will be reinstated once the necessary systems are in place for both companies and LLPs. Work to achieve that is already under way. In the meantime, other address information will remain publicly available.
Taken together, these are sensible and proportionate amendments. They improve the transparency and operation of the ROE while making a necessary technical correction to the LLP framework. I thank noble Lords in advance for their contributions and will endeavour to address in my concluding remarks the points that they may raise. I am grateful for the support shown across the House for these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to these regulations, which form part of the ongoing work to strengthen and refine the register of overseas entities, a register introduced by the Conservative Government to bring greater transparency to overseas ownership of UK land and to protect our economy from illicit finance. The instrument before us makes targeted and practical improvements to ensure that the register continues to operate effectively, balancing transparency with the proper protection of personal and sensitive information. These are measured and proportionate adjustments that respond to operational experience and ensure that the system remains robust, fair and fit for purpose.
As the Minister has outlined, the purpose of the register is to increase transparency around the beneficial ownership of overseas entities that hold land in the United Kingdom and to strengthen the UK’s defence against illicit finance. The framework for the register, including the treatment of trust information, was designed to balance two important principles: first, transparency, to ensure that overseas ownership structures cannot be used to conceal criminal activity; and secondly, privacy and proportionality, particularly in relation to sensitive trust data and information involving minors.
Since the register came into force, operational experience has highlighted several areas where the legislation could be improved to ensure that the system functions as intended. These include: first, the requirement to provide the name of the trust when applying for trust information, which in some cases risked revealing personal or sensitive details; secondly, the rules governing access to trust information where minors are involved, which were found to be overly restrictive; and thirdly, the administrative burden placed on individuals seeking to remove their home address from the public register, even where Companies House could verify the information internally.
The regulations before the Grand Committee today are intended to address these practical issues. They refine the balance between transparency and privacy; ensure that sensitive information, particularly relating to children, is handled appropriately; and streamline processes where the register already has the means to verify information. Taken together, these amendments represent a continuation of the work begun when the register was created, strengthening its operation, improving its accuracy and ensuring that it remains a robust tool within the UK’s wider economic crime framework.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, for the first time, I think. I welcome him to the wonderful world of economic crime. We are history-makers today, in that this is the first 11 am Tuesday session. It is a welcome change to the way in which we do business, making constructive use of the time we have. I look forward to lots of 11 am sessions going forward.
As both noble Lords have said, tackling economic crime and financial security are vital for the economy. I was one of the people who worked on the two economic crime Bills brought forward by the previous Administration. There was a collective effort by all parties in the House to try to deal with some of the most pernicious elements of the economic crime going on in our country.
As the Minister said, the register of overseas entities is an important step in improving beneficial ownership transparency, and we welcome any measures that make it work better in practice. As both speakers said, there are three elements to this statutory instrument. The first is to make trust information held on the register of overseas entities easier to access by removing the requirement to provide a trust name, as the Minister said, and allowing disclosure of non-minor information, even when a trust includes children. There was quite a lot of debate on this during the passage of the Bill, and this measure gets the balance right, I think, based on my rather sketchy memory of that debate.
The second element seeks to simplify the process, removing residential addresses from the public register. This is an important service for people who feel threatened or have an element of public life, but it will be important that Companies House applies the evidence properly and does not allow people to remove themselves from the register for non-real or suspicious reasons. At some point it would be useful to get a written response explaining what processes would be required to ensure that this streamlined process is not used by criminals or people seeking to hide their identity.
The third element is the temporary removal of the recently introduced LLP address-reporting requirement. The Minister said that it was prematurely introduced and that Companies House systems need to be upgraded in order to process this information. This causes some concern. The temporary removal of the LLP address-reporting requirement is worrying. The stated reason is that the systems are not yet ready, but it raises a broader question in my mind, which we referred to a lot during debates on the legislation, about the pace and resourcing of the change process going on in Companies House.
Identity verification for company directors became a legal requirement only in November 2025, and Lib Dem colleagues had previously raised concerns about the readiness and security of the One Login platform underpinning these checks. The Government have to set out a clear timetable, which I hope will binding, about when these LLP reporting requirements will be reinstated, and ensure that Companies House receives the investment and support it needs to deliver the reforms that Parliament has already passed.
During the various discussions on the two economic crime Bills, we had updates from Companies House on the transformation it would need to undergo to be able to take on the new responsibilities that the Bills, now Acts, were placing on its shoulders. It was clear that the organisation had a huge cultural change requirement. Of course, some increased resources were made available, but it is a bit concerning that this cultural change might have paused or stalled. Perhaps it is time for interested parties to have an update from Companies House, either in person or virtually, on both its general upgrading of capabilities and the progress of the One Login process.
More broadly, the register of overseas entities is only as effective as its enforcement. We Lib Dems have long called for properly funded enforcement agencies to hold financial criminals accountable—they have huge resources at their disposal—and for the UK to work hard to close further economic crime loopholes that allow corrupt money to flow through British property and company structures. We also reiterate our call—we would never miss the opportunity to do so—for British Overseas Territories to meet the same transparency standards as the UK mainland.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, to his new role and congratulate him on it, and I thank both noble Lords for the points raised during this very short debate. I start by saying that the UK’s approach to the ROE is way ahead of international standards in this area. The Government are continuing efforts to enhance transparency and support greater scrutiny of trusts’ information, where appropriate and proportionate, monitoring the impact of reforms and engaging with stakeholders to ensure that the register remains effective. Part of that effort is the asset ownership review, led by my noble friend Lady Hodge, announced in the Government’s anti-corruption strategy. This will, among other things, consider the approach to trust transparency across government.
I just touch on a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I have been told that the technology and systems in Companies House are holding back the required updating of information, but I have been informed that work to improve them is ongoing at pace, and a requirement for both LLPs and companies will, hopefully, be commenced very soon once that is completed. I do not have details at hand on when that will be completed, but I will get officials to find out from Companies House when it will be done.
The noble Lord made the point that a regular review and update from Companies House is well overdue. I will ensure that my officials reach out to Companies House to perhaps organise a drop-in session with interested Peers in this area, so at least we can ask officials from Companies House the questions that the noble Lord posed in respect of the timeframe, the technology system and, more importantly, the enforcement unit—where the resources have been allocated to make it effective. It is good having all this on the statute book and in legislation but, if enforcement is ineffective, it means nothing, so we must ensure that that is done as well. I am very grateful for the support across the Committee for these regulations.
Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the Renters’ Rights Act, a transforming set of reforms to bring more protections and security for tenants in the private rented sector, we are introducing a new landlord redress scheme. The service will resolve issues for tenants where their landlord has failed to address a legitimate complaint. It will provide impartial and fair resolution, giving tenants access to redress outside the court.
The Government recognise that most landlords are looking to provide a good service to their tenants. The new landlord redress scheme will support landlords to do just that, by providing guidance and tools to help them handle complaints locally and early in order to prevent escalation. This new service will close a key gap in housing redress, providing private rented sector tenants with enhanced consumer protection rights which tenants in the social rented sector already benefit from. It will help to raise standards in the sector by equipping landlords with tools and information on what best practice looks like.
These regulations are the first legislative step towards establishing landlord redress for the private rented sector. They set out the framework for how a mandatory private landlord redress scheme may be approved or designated. An approved scheme would be designed and run by an independent provider, while a designated scheme would be designed and administered by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State. The regulations also set out how such a scheme may be amended, allowing the service to adapt to emerging changes in the sector, and provide for continuity of redress by ensuring an orderly transition if a scheme closes or approval is withdrawn.
The regulations do not themselves approve or designate a redress scheme, nor do they impose an immediate requirement on landlords to join one. Rather, they set out the statutory criteria that any future scheme must meet, including requirements relating to governance, complaint handling, types of redress and enforcement of decisions, information sharing, reporting and review. They provide clarity and assurance for the sector on what can be expected of the service once it is established and in operation.
This framework is essential because a scheme cannot be approved or designated until these conditions are in force. It therefore enables the next stage of implementation: the establishment of the private rented sector landlord ombudsman scheme and, in due course, further regulations specifying which landlords will need to become members of a scheme and when such a requirement will come into effect. Subject to parliamentary approval, we will turn to progress the design of the scheme and ensure that it meets the robust conditions set out in these regulations. The scheme will be designated once the Secretary of State is content that it satisfies the approval conditions.
The intention is that the Housing Ombudsman Service, which provides redress to tenants in the social rented sector, will deliver the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman service, promoting consistency in redress across the sectors. We will continue work to implement the service, including developing the further regulations required and setting up the service. We will give landlords sufficient notice and clear guidance before any future requirement to join the scheme comes into force.
To conclude, these regulations put in place the minimum standards and safeguards that a private landlord redress scheme must meet, paving the way to establishing the new service and securing access to fair and binding redress for private tenants. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this SI. To be clear, we support the principle that tenants should have access to effective routes of redress when things go wrong. The overwhelming majority of disputes between landlords and tenants should not require lengthy, costly and stressful court proceedings when there is a fair and independent alternative. That is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward our own proposals for a private rented sector ombudsman.
The question is whether this scheme is proportionate and workable in practice. This needs to be done in the context of a housing crisis, with too few homes available for rent. We need a private rented sector that works for tenants but also for responsible landlords who provide those essential homes for millions of people across the country. A successful regulatory framework should protect tenants from poor practice without driving landlords out of the market or imposing burdens that ultimately increase costs for renters. I recognise the Government’s objective in establishing a mandatory landlord redress scheme, as there is a clear logic in ensuring that tenants have access to a system capable of providing independent, binding resolutions where complaints cannot be resolved directly.
We do, however, have a number of concerns. How will the interaction between landlords and managing agents be addressed? Many landlords employ agents to manage their properties; those agents are already required to belong to a redress scheme. Under these regulations, landlords will also be required to join such a scheme, which we raised during the passage of the Bill. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to avoid duplication where a complaint relates to actions involving both a landlord and an agent? If a tenant complains about property management repairs, communication failures or other issues where responsibilities overlap, how will the scheme determine who is accountable? What safeguards exist to prevent multiple investigations into the same complaint and conflicting outcomes being reached by different bodies?
The Government have described this scheme as a complementary measure, sitting alongside local authority enforcement powers, licensing regimes, the courts and the new landlord database, yet many landlords look at this growing list of registration requirements, fees, compliance obligations and potentially significant fines—not to mention court delays—and wonder whether it is worth the candle to carry on renting out a property. What work has been undertaken to ensure administrative alignment between the redress scheme, the landlord database and local authority licensing schemes? In particular, what steps have been taken to prevent landlords from being required to pay multiple fees for systems and fill out multiple forms that, from their perspective, may appear to serve similar or overlapping purposes?
The private rented sector is already facing significant pressures. Landlords face rising costs, increasing regulatory obligations and continuing uncertainty about future reforms. In many parts of the country, they are leaving the sector altogether. A recent article for Landlord Knowledge estimated that there will be 220,000 fewer rented homes available by the end of this year; that is around 5% of the market. With Zoopla estimating that in 2024 there were 21 people chasing every rental home, the last thing prospective tenants need is fewer homes for rent.
I turn to the Government’s preference for a single approved redress scheme. There is clearly a need for balance: a single scheme would reduce confusion and increase consistency. However, without competitive pressure, there is less incentive to innovate, to improve customer service and to control costs. The Government have indicated that further schemes could be approved if necessary. Can the Minister elaborate on the circumstances in which that power might be exercised? What performance measures will be used to assess whether the designated scheme is delivering an acceptable service to both tenants and landlords? I would also welcome further clarification on the £25,000 compensation cap.
Finally, I will make a broader point. The vast majority of landlords are responsible individuals who provide good-quality accommodation and comply with their obligations. Public policy should be directed towards addressing poor practice and rogue operators, without creating a system that treats each landlord as a potential offender. The success of this scheme should be measured by whether it resolves disputes quickly, fairly and proportionately, while supporting a healthy and functioning sector. Its success should not be measured by the volume of complaints it processes or the number of enforcement actions it takes.
We support the principle of effective redress and recognise the need for tenants to have access to independent dispute resolution, but it is essential that this scheme is practical, proportionate and properly integrated into existing regulatory structures. As I said earlier, there is a shortage of rental homes. How will the Government ensure that this does not further decline? I hope that the Minister will provide reassurance on duplication, costs, administrative burdens and the interactions of the scheme with the wider reforms affecting the private rented sector. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments and his very thoughtful questions, as ever, in relation to this instrument. I completely agree with his comment that it should be proportionate and workable in practice. He made a number of points around housing supply. We have made the biggest investment in a generation into affordable and social housing, and even yesterday there was talk of even further investment in that regard. It is important that we continue to focus on the housing supply question—he is quite right that we need to do that to make sure that the market is functioning effectively.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The Minister once or twice mentioned the biggest investment in social and affordable housing ever; I am curious about that. I know that the investment has been announced, and my understanding is that applications are now going through. It would be very much appreciated if the Minister could update us, either in written form or today, on when that money will actually be out of the door and being used.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to do that. The applications closed at the end of March, I think—somebody will correct me if that is not right—and are being considered now. As soon as the announcement is made, I am happy to update the House.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with a brief explanation of what this instrument is not. It is not a mechanism for extending legal aid, and it does not represent a change to legal aid policy. It does not introduce any new pressure on legal aid, and thus we do not expect it to result in any significant increase in cost.
It is a technical instrument—in effect, a piece of housekeeping—to ensure that the legal aid framework remains aligned with wider legislation and continues to operate in a clear and consistent way. It is needed because Parliament has approved several new measures, so this instrument ensures that the legal aid framework is appropriately updated. The instrument delivers three key things: continuity of legal aid where anti-social behaviour orders are being replaced; clarity in the legal aid framework for TPIMs; and consistency across the closely related TPIM and STPIM national security regimes.
I turn first to the anti-social behaviour measures. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 created or revised three anti-social behaviour injunctions: first, respect orders; secondly, youth injunctions; and thirdly, housing injunctions. All are new orders, but are broadly similar to the current anti-social behaviour injunctions that they are replacing. Civil legal aid is already available for anti-social behaviour injunctions under the existing legal aid legislation, but an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act—known universally as LASPO—is needed to ensure that civil legal aid is available for these provisions.
The policy intention is one of continuity, because without these amendments there would be a risk of unintended gaps in legal aid availability. This instrument therefore ensures that individuals subject to new anti-social behaviour orders continue to have access to legal advice and representation, subject to the usual means and merits tests.
I turn now to the national security measures. There are two aspects of what the instrument does in relation to national security. First, it makes clarificatory amendments to the legal aid regulations in relation to terrorism prevention and investigation measures—or TPIMs—to make clear in legislation the framework that already operates in practice.
Secondly, it aligns the legal aid arrangements for state threats prevention and investigation measures—STPIMs—with those for TPIMs, which reflects the close similarity of the measures and ensures consistency in their handling. TPIMs are civil measures imposed by the Home Secretary with the aim of preventing or restricting an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activities; STPIMs are a parallel regime designed to prevent and disrupt individuals who are involved in hostile state threat activity. Both can place restrictions on an individual’s movement, associations and daily life. Strong legal safeguards are required in order to ensure fairness, accountability and compliance with human rights obligations. It is therefore essential that the legal aid framework applying to these measures is coherent, clear and fair.
Currently, civil legal aid is available for advice and representation in proceedings relating to TPIMs and STPIMs for those who are subject to such measures, which will not change. However, although legal aid is already available for TPIM cases, the legislative framework is complex and has given rise to ambiguity. This instrument takes how the scheme already operates in practice and puts it into legislation, thus ensuring both transparency and consistency.
Generally speaking, legal aid covers a number of aspects of legal representation, not all of which are subject to the same regime in terms of means and merits testing. This is in order to ensure that taxpayers’ money is targeted so that it is used in the best way. In this instance, this instrument confirms that, for TPIMs, legal help is non-means-tested, thus ensuring access to early advice, but legal representation for TPIM proceedings is means-tested. This reflects the fact that TPIM proceedings are treated for legal aid purposes as judicial review cases, because they apply the same principles. Legal aid for judicial review proceedings is means-tested. Therefore, in order to ensure consistency, this instrument makes it clear that TPIMs are treated in the same way.
STPIMs are closely modelled on TPIMs. This instrument ensures that the legal aid scheme operates fairly and consistently across these two national security measures so, as with TPIMs, legal help is available on a non-means-tested basis for STPIMs, enabling individuals to access immediate advice where they are the subject of one. However, legal representation for proceedings in relation to an STPIM remains subject to the standard means and merits tests, consistent with TPIMs and for the same reasons that relate to judicial review proceedings.
As with the amendments made in relation to the anti-social behaviour measures, these amendments do not reflect a change in legal aid policy. Rather, their purpose is to remedy ambiguity and avoid differences in treatment between comparable regimes. This instrument is a necessary and important housekeeping measure: it preserves continuity of legal aid where existing anti-social behaviour injunctions are being replaced; it clarifies the legal aid framework for TPIMs; and it ensures that STPIMs are treated consistently with the comparable TPIM regime. It is a technical instrument that helps maintain access to justice, coherence in the legal aid scheme and consistency across related statutory regimes. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for laying this instrument. We on these Benches support the order. As the Minister explained, this is a largely technical instrument. It ensures that legal aid continues to be available where new civil orders introduced by the Crime and Policing Act replace or mirror existing arrangements. In particular, it extends legal aid to proceedings relating to respect orders, youth injunctions and housing injunctions, and makes sensible technical amendments concerning terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and state threats prevention.
Continuity in access to legal aid is an important principle. Where Parliament creates a new legal mechanism with potentially significant consequences for individuals, it is right that the legal aid framework keeps pace. This order achieves that objective without altering, as the Minister indicated, the underlying policy on eligibility or legal aid provision.
We particularly welcome the inclusion of respect orders. During the passage of the then Crime and Policing Bill, we consistently argued that these orders should be robust and effective tools for tackling persistent anti-social behaviour. Indeed, we sought to strengthen them further by amendments that would have lowered the age of eligibility. Communities clearly require swift action where anti-social behaviour blights neighbourhoods and damages public confidence but, if respect orders are to command confidence, it is equally important that proceedings are fair and that those subject to them have access to appropriate legal representation. This instrument sensibly preserves that continuity.
In closing, I pose one question to the Minister. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government do not expect this order to have any significant impact on the public or voluntary sectors. Can she confirm that the Legal Aid Agency and legal aid providers are fully prepared to implement these changes immediately upon commencement, so that there is no gap in provision before the relevant provisions of the Crime and Policing Act come into force? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for welcoming this statutory instrument. The answer to his question on the legal aid agencies is yes; we are ready for that. This instrument, as the noble and learned Lord said, is a necessary step to ensure that the legal aid framework remains aligned with wider legislation. It supports access to justice and ensures that the legal aid scheme operates coherently.
West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that this draft order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee without any concerns raised. It relates to the key route network of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which, sadly, I will hereafter refer to as the KRN and the WMCA.
It might help noble Lords if I explain what a KRN is. It is a set of the most important locally managed roads in a strategic authority’s area. Under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, mayors are required to designate a KRN, but most strategic authorities, including the WMCA, already have one. It allows the most important local roads to be managed in a strategic way across the whole strategic authority area.
Statutory guidance on how to decide the composition of a KRN was published by the Government in April this year, as part of wider guidance on producing local transport plans. In short, the KRN roads should be those that are the most important locally for the delivery of policies in the local transport plan. Authorities should consider things such as traffic levels, public transport use, active travel and freight movement. In mayoral strategic authorities such as the WMCA, the KRN is agreed by a resolution of the authority following a proposal by the mayor. The KRN in the WMCA area constitutes 605 kilometres of roads, accounting for 7% of the total road network and carrying 50% of its traffic.
The constituent councils of the WMCA are Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The WMCA is responsible for the strategic oversight, but the councils are the local highways authorities and remain responsible for the management, maintenance and safety of the roads in the KRN. The WMCA does, however, have some powers over these roads, which it shares with its constituent councils. These include powers relating to making agreements with National Highways, promoting road safety and street works permit schemes.
In addition, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 gave all mayors of strategic authorities a power of direction over the roads in the key route network. The power of direction allows the mayor to direct the local highway authority to exercise its powers over a KRN road that it manages. The power of direction is a limited power, designed to be used only when necessary for the delivery of a measure that has been set out in at least one agreed plan or strategy of the strategic authority, such as a local transport plan.
In summary, the KRN allows for roads to be managed in a strategic way across an area. It enables improved traffic flow and reduces congestion. It also allows for the introduction of traffic management measures to improve infrastructure and bus journey times. I hope that I have set out clearly why a KRN is a useful tool. I am sure that it will have occurred to noble Lords that, due to the changing nature of travel patterns, in particular during the years following the pandemic, it would be prudent for a strategic authority such as the WMCA to keep its KRN under review and update it when it no longer reflects the most important locally managed roads.
For most strategic authorities, updating the KRN is logistically straightforward. It usually requires simply updating the list of roads on its website following a resolution of the authority. For the WMCA, however, making changes is not as straightforward because the roads in that key route network are set out in legislation, in the West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017, where they are described as “combined authority roads”.
The WMCA was an early adopter of a key route network. In 2017, under the previous Government, listing the roads in the KRN in legislation provided certainty at a time when the combined authority was new and the key route network had not yet been used. Nine years have now passed and the WMCA would like to update its KRN as part of its work to publish a new local transport plan. The inflexibility of having the KRN roads set out in legislation is a barrier to this. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a process whereby the combined authority must write to the Department for Transport to ask us to legislate every time it wants to amend its KRN is far from optimal. This is especially true when we consider that other authorities simply need to update their website to do the same thing.
After discussions with officials in my department, the combined authority has therefore written to the Secretary of State to ask that we draft and lay this instrument. This follows a public consultation in which 69% of respondents supported the proposal. Subject to its approval by Parliament, this instrument will remove the KRN roads from the 2017 order. Following this, the combined authority will be able to update its KRN roads in the same way as other strategic authorities, allowing it to respond as flexibly as possible to changing travel patterns and deliver better outcomes for road users in the area. I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Laing of Elderslie) (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Ukraine: International Claims Commission Convention
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine.
Relevant documents: 1st Report of the International Agreements Committee
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
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.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
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.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
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.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
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.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
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.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
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.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
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.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
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.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
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.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
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.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
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.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
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.
Lord Callanan (Con)
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 Committee 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.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
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.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
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.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
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.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
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 and learned 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.