Ukraine: International Claims Commission Convention
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Anderson of Swansea
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.