Ukraine: Humanitarian Assistance

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, who feels very passionately about these issues. I too welcome this short debate and congratulate my noble friend Lady Tyler on her powerful and comprehensive opening speech. As my noble friend said, there have been many debates on Ukraine recently but inevitably, and correctly, they have concentrated primarily on defence and geopolitical issues. It is all too easy for war to become about statistics and to lose sight of the life or family behind each statistic that is shattered by the divisions of war.

More than a thousand days since Russia invaded Ukraine, it is welcome that there remains a united front across all mainstream UK political parties in support of Ukraine. There is a general recognition that Ukraine’s future is our future. We should be proud of the support we continue to give to Ukraine, but sometimes it is good to stop and remind ourselves of the impact that war has had on individual lives—the impact of having had your home destroyed by a missile, having no power, heat or light, and the inevitable impact on well-being and mental health.

I refer noble Lords to my register of interests and the various projects I have worked on in Ukraine since 2017, including as an ambassador for the homelessness charity Depaul International and as a trustee of the John Smith Trust. I thank the trust’s fellows in Ukraine for their suggestions and ideas for this speech.

Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 changed people’s lives in an instant. Personal plans, careers and studies were all put on hold. In March 2022, just after the Russian invasion began, I went to the Polish border with Ukraine at Przemyśl. Seeing the young children sitting on their little suitcases with their soft toys and pets in cages on their laps, and the elderly looking so disorientated, shocked and bewildered, was an overwhelming experience that I shall never forget.

The first thing that struck me when I saw the crowds outside Przemyśl railway station was that there were only women, children and the elderly. There were no young men; they had had to stay behind to fight. People had had to grab what possessions they could and flee for their lives.

We are now in the third winter of this war and all my Ukrainian friends fear it will be the worst yet. A Ukrainian colleague said to me this week:

“We are a critical juncture—not just for Ukraine, but for the whole democratic world. The war in Ukraine is not merely a regional conflict. It is a battle between democracy and tyranny. Supporting Ukraine’s energy independence, whether through renewable energy solutions, flexible backup systems, alternative routes, or timely repairs to existing infrastructure, is about more than just keeping the lights on. It is about ensuring Ukraine’s survival this winter and securing the future of democracy itself”.


In terms of Ukraine’s energy supplies, the war did not start in 2022, or even in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. The seeds were sown long before, with Russia’s gas wars in 2005-06. Even then, Putin’s intentions were clear: using energy as a weapon to undermine Ukraine. Building pipelines to bypass Ukraine was just one piece of his broader strategy.

Ukraine’s energy infrastructure system is currently under tremendous strain. Frequent equipment failures, compounded by ongoing missile and drone attacks, threaten its ability to function. These challenges are made worse by the system’s outdated infrastructure and bureaucratic barriers that complicate efforts to secure vital equipment. I appreciate that we have already given considerable financial resource to Ukraine’s energy sector, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more in his concluding remarks about our plans to assist the energy sector this winter.

In particular, I have heard from colleagues in Ukraine that they urgently need critical equipment such as valves, gas cleaning and drying installations, regulating fittings and pipelines. These items, whether unused, decommissioned or donated, are essential to maintaining operations. I am told that bureaucratic obstacles, both on a domestic and international level, are currently slowing down the provision of such equipment. I suspect that, like me, the Minister is not an expert in these matters, but I would be grateful if he or the relevant Minister could reply in more detail about these energy matters in writing.

Supporting Ukraine’s energy sector and gas supply companies is going to be absolutely key this winter. That is something that President Putin is very well aware of, which is precisely why he is so cynically targeting Ukrainian power stations. Nothing saps morale like the icy cold and the dark and, as someone who used to work in Ukraine, I can testify to quite how cold it gets in the winter. I believe the UK can play a vital role in this. Working with our European partners, we must be able to find creative ways around any barriers to ensure uninterrupted heating and electricity supplies for millions of Ukrainian households this coming winter.

According to a recent report commissioned by Depaul—the homelessness charity that has been doing amazing and very important work in Ukraine for many years, but most especially since the war—3.5 million people are now internally displaced and the homes of 2 million households have been destroyed or damaged. Almost a quarter—22%—of people sleeping rough or in emergency shelters are displaced because of the war. The United Nations has described conflict as a “systematic driver” of homelessness.

To be clear, housing and homelessness were already issues in Ukraine before the war. In 2017, I worked on a public health project to raise awareness of tuberculosis in Odesa. During that project, I met many homeless people who were living with TB. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the difficult transition years following independence, Ukraine was already facing many social issues. But the invasion of 2022 has served to make so many of these issues so very much worse in Ukraine. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about specific support that we can give this winter to provide shelters and rebuild homes, as well as support the most vulnerable.

Living in Broadstairs, Kent, I have had the privilege, over the last few years, of being involved with an excellent organisation called Canterbury for Ukraine. Through it, I have been able to get to know many of the Ukrainians currently living and seeking shelter in Kent. I am proud of the warmth of so many people in the UK who have opened their homes to Ukrainian families. Understandably, many Ukrainians have chosen to stay in Ukraine; however difficult the situation becomes, it remains their home.

As other noble Lords have said, I know that the UK has committed to giving £100 million in humanitarian assistance in 2024-25, but can the Minister give reassurances that a sizeable proportion of this funding will be targeted towards measures for long-term programmes for internal resettlement to safer regions in Ukraine? It is also key that we continue to give support to vulnerable groups, including pensioners, low-income families and people with disabilities. This will not only help people survive the winter but lay the groundwork for sustainable social reforms, keeping Ukrainian citizens connected to their country.

My second issue is that of displaced children. More than 2.5 million Ukrainian children are now displaced; many face broken family ties, psychological trauma and limited access to education. Some 30% of the children who left Ukraine with one parent have completely lost contact with the other parent who remains in Ukraine. Some 80% of children whose parents are serving in the armed forces of Ukraine have minimal or no contact with them. The provision of professional psychological rehabilitation centres, training programmes for social workers and comprehensive family law reforms will be vital in the future, and the UK is well placed to give assistance in this regard.

To conclude, I stress once again, as I have in previous debates, that whatever happens geopolitically in the months ahead and as a result of the Trump presidency, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future. All my Ukrainian friends and contacts are hugely grateful for the tremendous support that the UK continues to give, both militarily and through humanitarian support, but in this most difficult of winters ahead it is more important than ever that we keep up this support.

Sudan

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, because she always brings such authority to a debate.

I too thank the Minister for initiating this important debate and congratulate him on his comprehensive and powerful speech. It is very welcome that we are having this debate today; a debate in government time is long overdue. As the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, this sometimes feels like the forgotten war, yet it is so far from forgotten for the millions of displaced, sick and starving of Sudan. It is stark to see quite how little coverage of the war there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, compared to the coverage of what is happening in the Middle East or Ukraine.

I worked on a project in Sudan from 2022 to 2023— I refer noble Lords to my register of interests. Indeed, my last visit to Khartoum was in April 2023 with my noble friend Lord Purvis, just one week before this awful civil war started. By the time we left Khartoum, the roads were all closed, the pro-democracy campaigners were facing the Sudanese Armed Forces on the streets, and the air was thick with tear gas. Then, just one week later, on 15 April, the full-blown civil war started.

It is the most cynical of wars. It is not a war about ideals or ideology but about personal wealth, power, influence and access to natural resources—and all at the terrible expense of ordinary people, especially women and children, who now face starvation on a catastrophic scale. It is estimated that 37% of the population faces severe food insecurity. It is a war that, in many ways, has become a proxy war for current geopolitical tensions. During my visits to Khartoum, the Wagner Group was clearly visible in the streets of the capital, and at that time it was supporting the RSF. However, there is evidence that Russia is now cynically switching sides in its bid to maintain access to the Red Sea.

Both sides in this war—the RSF and the SAF—are accused of international war crimes. There are truly appalling reports of soldiers using rape as a weapon. Even before the fighting broke out, the UN estimated that 3 million women and girls in Sudan were at risk of gender-based violence. It is rightly described as

“one of the worst humanitarian nightmares in recent history”

by UN officials.

Yet after President Bashir was removed in 2019, there were genuine hopes that the transition to a civilian-led Government based on human rights and the rule of law might be possible. Certainly, in September 2022, during my first visit to Sudan, I was struck by the optimism and hope when talking to my Sudanese colleagues. At home in my flat, I have a copy of Hussein Merghani’s wonderful watercolour from 2019, which shows hundreds of people, including women and children from Atbara, travelling by train to join the sit-in at the military headquarters in Khartoum in April 2019. The painting is optimistic and shows the strength of public support at that time, across the country, after the revolution in 2019, for a different future for Sudan. It was an all too fleeting time of optimism.

One of the people I got to know while working in Khartoum was Samia El Hashmi. Samia is an eminent Sudanese lawyer and women’s rights activist who was working with the Sudanese Bar Association. After the revolution, Samia helped to draft a new constitution for Sudan which enshrined human rights and the rule of law. In many ways, Samia for me embodies the many wonderful and highly educated people I met in Sudan—people who just want to live a normal life in the country that they love but who had to flee for their lives when the fighting started in April last year.

The history of relations between Sudan and Britain is long and complex, but this shared history creates a special bond between our nations. We should not forget that the University of Durham’s Sudan archive preserves much of the history of Sudan. With this shared history comes responsibility. After the December revolution, the UK rightly played an important role with the quartet in supporting the democratic transition and promoting civilian government, political security and stability, economic reform and human rights. This is a process which should be continued and revived whenever—as we all hope—this conflict can be brought to an end.

I do not have an instant solution for how we can bring about peace to Sudan. I am sure many noble Lords speaking in the debate today are much better qualified and placed than me to make suggestions in that regard. But as my friend Samia has said to me, Britain can and must continue to play a trusted role, and do all in our power to work with others to bring about an end to this most bloody of conflicts.

In his concluding remarks, I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about the Government’s position on increasing the arms embargo to cover the whole of the country. I welcome what he said in his opening statement: that the Government will do all they can to ensure that those guilty of the most appalling war crimes—particularly against women and children—will face justice through the International Criminal Court.

Wars can too easily become about just statistics, but for me, this is personal. It is about the Sudanese people I had the opportunity to get to know and work with during my visits to Sudan. They desperately want the international community to give them some hope that the conflict can be stopped and that they can return to their country and start to rebuild once again from the rubble.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her position and wish her well, but I must say—this is no reflection on her—that Northern Ireland would be better served in this House with a full-time departmental Minister.

The shooting dead of Patrick Finucane at home in front of his family in February 1989 by members of the loyalist terror group the Ulster Defence Association was a heinous act. Like all terrorist atrocities committed during the Troubles, whether loyalist or republican, there could never be any justification for it.

As the Statement makes clear, since 1989 there have been a number of investigations and reviews into the killing of Patrick Finucane—most recently the review by the late Sir Desmond de Silva QC, established by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2011, which reported in December 2012. Sir Desmond, who had full access to the Finucane archive and all relevant state papers, concluded in 2012 that while there was no “over-arching State conspiracy”, there were shocking levels of state collusion.

The Statement acknowledges the unprecedented apology from my noble friend, which I helped to draft, and the Opposition stand by every word of that apology. Any state collusion was, and is, always wrong and should always be condemned, and those responsible should, wherever possible, always face the full force of the law.

The de Silva review sought to establish the facts of what happened in a far shorter timescale than could ever have been achieved by a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I maintain that the review, delivered on time and on budget, was a thorough, substantial piece of work that put far more information into the public domain about the Finucane killing than had ever been made available before. Despite that, as the noble Baroness made clear, after a series of legal challenges the Supreme Court ruled in February 2019 that the de Silva review, along with all previous investigations, was not fully Article 2 compliant, for the reasons the noble Baroness set out in the Statement.

It is worth pointing out that the 2019 judgment did not conclude that a public inquiry was required to remedy the Article 2 deficiency, let alone order such an inquiry. Rather, it said at paragraph 153 that:

“It is for the state to decide … what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement”.


Following further court challenges by the Finucane family, and deadlines set by the Court of Appeal in Belfast, the new Government announced yesterday that they will now establish a public inquiry under the terms of the Inquiries Act—something that, as the Statement points out, had previously been rejected by the Finucane family.

Although we respect the Government’s decision in this case, we believe it to be a mistaken decision and one that, I fear, is likely to be a case of “Grant in haste and repent at leisure”. In our view, a better and more appropriate way forward would have been to refer the case to the newly established Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, ICRIR. This body is now staffed and operational, since 1 May, under the distinguished leadership of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC, who revealed on Monday that the commission has already considered 85 applications, with eight of them now at the information recovery stage.

For all the controversy surrounding the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, and despite the new Government’s pledge to “repeal and replace” the Act, they have now committed to keeping the ICRIR, the establishment of which forms the vast bulk of the Act. Indeed, in the Statement the Secretary of State expressed his confidence in Sir Declan Morgan and the ability of the ICRIR

“to find answers for survivors and families”.

In February this year the High Court found the ICRIR to be capable of conducting effective Article 2-compliant investigations and to be sufficiently independent of government. The Statement acknowledges that the commission has similar powers to compel and secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies to those available to any public inquiry. The commission is able to hold hearings in public under an enhanced inquisitorial process and has the powers to compel witnesses—the main deficiency identified by the court in the de Silva review.

In light of all this, can the noble Baroness set out precisely what a public inquiry can achieve that the ICRIR cannot? Why set up an entirely new process, with all the time and cost involved in that, when we have a body in place that could begin straightaway and deliver the same outcomes?

On timings, can the noble Baroness give any indication of when the Government expect to appoint a judge to chair the inquiry, when we are likely to see the agreed terms of reference, and when the inquiry will begin formal proceedings?

The Secretary of State expressed the expectation that, given previous reviews and investigations, costs can be contained. Does the noble Baroness not agree that, given the thoroughness with which we expect public inquiries to be conducted, and mindful of the history of such inquiries in Northern Ireland, this might turn out to be something of a triumph of hope over expectation? What is the Government’s estimate of the time and the cost?

The Government’s main argument in favour of a public inquiry in this case appears to be its “unique circumstances”, the promises that were made at Weston Park in 2001 and those of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in the other place in 2004. Can the noble Baroness set out what precisely are the unique circumstances of this case that set it apart from other atrocities carried out during the Troubles and that merit different treatment? Have the Government considered the impact of this decision on other victims and survivors of the Troubles? Can she confirm that the challenge to the previous Government’s decision not to proceed with a public inquiry, on the basis that this had been promised by another Government years before, was dismissed by the Supreme Court in February 2019? Can she also say how many other demands for public inquiries the Government are currently considering?

Finally, I welcome the acknowledgement in the Statement of the role of the security forces, the vast majority of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out, carried out their duties with courage, professionalism and dedication to the rule of law, and whom we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to working constructively with her, not least on legacy issues, over the months ahead.

From these Benches we strongly welcome yesterday’s Statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for both its measured tone and its content. We welcome that there is finally to be a public inquiry. The brutal murder of Patrick Finucane was one of the most shocking and controversial incidents that took place in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The Finucane family has had to wait more than 35 years for justice, and we can but hope that this inquiry can begin to result in some closure for them after all these years.

It is extremely important that the public inquiry being established will have the confidence of the public and all the powers necessary to carry out its job in full. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will be able to compel witnesses and secure all relevant documents? Can she say a little more about the likely process, conditions and timetable for appointing the chair of the inquiry?

On wider legacy issues, the Minister will recognise that there are so many other families in Northern Ireland who are still waiting for truth and justice. With the ICRIR in place, and the commitment of the Government to repeal the immunity section of the legacy Act, it is important that we have clarity on these matters as soon as possible, including how the inquiry will relate to the ICRIR. Can she say how and when we are likely to be informed about the process and timing of repealing the immunity section of the legacy Act? In his Statement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was committed to considering measures to “further strengthen” the ICRIR. Can the Minister say how and when she expects this to take place?

Finally, I welcome the response of the Northern Ireland Secretary to my honourable friend James MacCleary MP yesterday that there will be close co-operation with opposition MPs on wider legacy issues. Can the Minister provide reassurances that Members of this House will also be kept fully informed at every stage of this process?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his extensive service—the decades of work for peace in Northern Ireland—and I look forward to working with him to ensure that his legacy, and the legacy work that we will do, goes forward. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her welcome. I look forward to working with them both, and with all Members of this House, on all the issues raised today.

As this is my first outing at the Dispatch Box, before I move on I want to thank the many noble Lords who have worked to deliver peace in Northern Ireland. I was born in 1979. At the time of the atrocity we are discussing, I was nine years old. This is my history, and all of our history, but I lived through the benefit of peace because of the work done by so many noble Lords. I, and many others, are grateful for it.

The murder of Patrick Finucane was one of four cases for which the Government committed to establishing a public inquiry following the findings of Judge Cory. It is important to remember what was agreed at Weston Park. Inquiries were established in three cases—the murders of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright—but not in the case of Patrick Finucane. This is how we can complete the promises and pledges made in this House and to those families as we move forward with the next stage of legacy.

I wish to put on record my deepest sympathies to the Finucane family and to all those touched by the Troubles. It is the considered view of the Secretary of State, and a commitment that the Government have made this week—having held this view consistently since 2001—that there will be a public inquiry into the case of Patrick Finucane. Although the court found that the previous investigations did not meet our Article 2 obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, they did help provide crucial information, and, as was the case following the third of the Stevens investigations, a successful prosecution of one of those involved in the murder.

As was set out in the Statement, the Government have full confidence in the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to deliver for victims and families. As has been published by the commission this week, and referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, 85 families have already approached the commission with their case—a positive endorsement of the new body. Eight of those requests for information are now at the information recovery stage.

As has been set out, the commission has powers comparable to those of a public inquiry—namely the powers to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies. Crucially, the courts have ruled that the commission can deliver investigations compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For these reasons, as was set out to Parliament by the Secretary of State, the Government have chosen to retain the commission. However, we have listened to the concerns of victims and families, and acknowledge that many wish to have a choice as to which avenue they pursue to get the answers and justice that they deserve.

That is why, in his Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament just before the Summer Recess, the Secretary of State set out his plans to propose measures to allow inquests that were brought to an end by the legacy Act to recommence, and to reverse the Act’s current prohibition on bringing new civil claims. The Government are also exploring how we can further strengthen the independence and powers of the commission, in addition to repealing the conditional immunity provisions in order to build public confidence in the commission across all communities.

I now need to answer the questions that were asked. I was asked about repealing, and how and when we will do it. We are currently consulting with all parties and all communities on what will work for them, and what they need to give them confidence in the commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, the commission is now established—it exists. We need to ensure that it has the trust of all communities, some of which is lacking, and to establish what additional powers we need to give to Sir Declan Morgan to ensure that there is confidence across the communities.

Timings regarding the public inquiry that we have announced will follow in due course, but let us be clear: the Finucane family have waited 35 years for answers, and we will do everything we can to ensure that the process is as speedy as it can be. We wanted to update the House before 27 September, which was the legal deadline agreed, to make sure that your Lordships’ House was aware of the next steps. I will return to the House once we have appointed a chair, and with that chair negotiated and agreed the terms of reference.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked about the costs associated with the commission. He knows better than I that a huge amount of work has already been done on the Finucane case, some of which is publicly available and some of which is not. On that basis, we believe that the terms of reference can be negotiated and delivered in such a way that costs can be managed, and that we can work with the family and all partners to ensure that this can be delivered on time, quickly, and, I hope, to budget.

The Government are mindful of the many years that Mrs Finucane and her family have been waiting for this inquiry, and of the decades that have passed since the commitment at Weston Park, which was signed by my noble friend Lord Reid. As such, we are keen to deliver the inquiry as quickly as is practicable, as it is the only outstanding case. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, due process must be followed, and it will inevitably take some time to work through all the necessary stages and preparatory work in setting up the inquiry.

We all remember the savage brutality of the Troubles and their legacy—a truly terrible time in our history. Peace can never be taken for granted. We must work every day to ensure that the Troubles remain part of our history, not of our future. By ensuring that families have access to all available information, and working together on delivering the promises of Weston Park and the Stormont agreement, we can ensure that the building blocks of legacy help us to deliver peace and reconciliation in the future.