Lord Johnson of Lainston
Main Page: Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative - Life peer)Ukraine: International Claims Commission Convention
Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts
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.
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.