Ukraine: Special Tribunal

Debate between Stephen Doughty and John Howell

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Davies. You are wearing an excellent tie; there are a number of good ties on display. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) for securing this critical debate, and thank all colleagues for their valuable and insightful contributions. I also declare an interest: I travelled on the same trip to Ukraine as him. It gave us a huge insight into the reality of the devastation of Putin’s brutal actions against the civilians and people of Ukraine.

Over the weekend, we came together in this country to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III, and to look forward to the future. It was a time of celebration, hope and optimism. In Ukraine, tragically, this weekend could not have been more different. Ukraine had to withstand yet another series of barrages against civilian areas. Yesterday morning alone, Russia launched 16 missile strikes on cities and regions, including Kharkiv, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Odesa, as well as 61 other airstrikes—barbarous actions that are feared to have killed even more civilians.

As we have seen throughout the conflict, Russia’s brutality truly knows no limits. Such damage has been done to the people and the country of Ukraine. Families have been torn apart, lives have been lost, injuries have been caused, and devastation has been inflicted on cities, towns and villages. There is also the impact on the economy. At the root of that is the flagrant disregard that Russia has shown towards Ukrainian sovereignty. Its actions are those of a tyrant who continues to believe that he and his regime are outside any legal or moral standard—outside the parameters of accountability. We need to show him and the Russian regime that that is not the case. That is why today’s debate is so integral to our efforts, and those of our allies and partners, to hold him to account for the atrocities being committed in his name.

As you will know, Mr Davies, the Opposition have been clear since the war began that the Government would enjoy our full support if they strengthened the UK’s position on the conflict in Ukraine, and the response to Russia’s actions. There is a great deal of unity across the House, whether on sanctions; tackling illicit finance; providing military, technical and humanitarian support to Ukraine; or expanding and emboldening our diplomatic coalition. The first lady of Ukraine will have heard that again when she attended the coronation at the weekend.

I have a series of questions for the Minister on the issue of a special tribunal. As far back as March last year, days after the latest phase of this brutal invasion, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) joined others in calling for the creation of a special tribunal to prosecute President Putin and others in the Kremlin regime for the crime of aggression. We welcome other ongoing efforts, which have already been discussed. That includes individual war crimes investigations and prosecutions in Ukraine domestically. The International Criminal Court has taken the welcome step of issuing an arrest warrant for the utterly brutal alleged crime of the illegal deportation of children. We have to accept that we can pursue distinct, potentially complementary, legal routes to ensure that Ukraine and its people receive justice.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said at the start of the conflict that the establishment of a special tribunal would be critical to holding Putin to account for the original sin—the crime of aggression. We and others have listened, and have added our voice to the growing international chorus that backs that practical and necessary step. I was going through the Library briefing on the issue. There have been a lot of questions and debates on this issue in the House, but we have yet to hear the Government’s thinking on a special tribunal. As has been mentioned, the Government have joined this core group, but the commitment appears to concern a hybrid model. It is important to note, and we have said all along, that we want to be led by Ukrainians—what Ukrainians want and what the Ukrainian Government want. President Zelensky has been very reluctant to have a hybrid model. Indeed, he recently said:

“only one institution is capable of responding to the original crime—the crime of aggression. A Tribunal! Not something hybrid that can formally close the topic…Not some compromise that will allow politicians to say that the case is allegedly done…But a true, full-fledged Tribunal. True and full justice.”

Throughout, we have listened to and been led by the wishes of Ukraine’s leaders and its people, and that needs to happen on this issue as well.

In February, the President of the EU Commission also announced that he would establish the International Centre for Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, which will be headquartered in The Hague. We have heard about the excellent work going on in the Council of Europe and other international examples, some of which I will come to later, but we have yet to hear a clear position from the Government on this. It is very important that we do, because we have heard about the potential weaknesses and limitations in some of the other models. The ICC alone does not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression unless both the victim and aggressor have ratified and accepted the Court’s jurisdiction over a specific crime, so another way forward must be devised if we are to hold the regime to account.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its ongoing use of force against Ukrainian sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence is an act of aggression amounting to a violation of article 2(4) of the UN charter. Russia has irrefutably breached the threshold amounting to the legally defined crime of aggression under article 8 of the Rome statute of the ICC, which relates to the

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

Similar questions can be raised about others who have been involved. Will the Minister comment on the situation with regard to Belarus and its aiding and abetting of the Russian regime, particularly as we saw in the early stages of the war and the attempts to capture Kyiv?

The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution on 2 March last year, which:

“Deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (4) of the Charter”.

The Minister knows that that carried the support of 141 states and was a clear, incontrovertible and significant decision by the United Nations General Assembly.

[John Howell]

The hon. Gentleman speaks of other states being involved. Is he aware that a big impetus for the tribunal comes from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? That is partly to support Ukraine, but it is also seen as a defensive measure should Russia invade those countries.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Indeed, he tempts me further forward, but let me refer to some of the other international support. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania made a joint statement on October 16 last year. I have mentioned the European Union, and the President of the European Commission made a statement on 20 November 2022, as did France. Indeed, there has been a growing chorus of other Governments, academics, legal experts and those who have been involved in similar processes in the past.

We can look at other tribunals that have been created, such as the special tribunals that were created for the former Yugoslavia and for crimes in Sierra Leone and Liberia. There are distinct differences, but we can learn important lessons from them. Indeed, the House of Commons Library refers to the Dutch Government’s willingness to hold a special tribunal. Although that is distinct from the ICC and its position in The Hague, the seat of international justice, the Dutch Government have indicated their willingness.

We have heard about the different options during this debate. That includes, first, amending the ICC’s Rome statute, although there are serious workability issues around that; secondly, a so-called hybrid model, but, as we have heard, President Zelensky does not feel that that is the right way forward; and thirdly, an international court established by the UN General Assembly with the agreement of Ukraine. We could also have a treaty between interested states, creating a special tribunal, and we have heard of a fifth option, which is the model that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) referred to in relation to the Council of Europe.

There are two critical issues that we would need to address in any model. First, there is the issue of immunities. There are questions in some of the options about whether immunity would come into play. Secondly, there is the question of selectivity, but I do not think that those need to necessarily stand in the way of the model. As has been said, a number of international legal experts and countries believe that those can be overcome by the special tribunal model.

Let me be clear that the brutality—the sheer wickedness—of what we have seen in Ukraine requires some very creative, robust and ambitious thinking. That is why Labour Members, and many hon. Members across the House, have supported the Ukrainian proposal for a special tribunal. These are some of the worst crimes that we have seen and the most incontrovertible case of aggression. Also, establishing a special tribunal and finding against Putin and Russia, as I very much hope it would, would lead us to a place where we can potentially take further action to give practical help to the people of Ukraine—for example, on the sequestration of Russian state assets. If we can establish and prosecute that original sin—that original crime of aggression—it could help to underpin the international legal basis for other actions that could lead to direct support for the Ukrainian people, as well as achieving the fundamental aim of justice for the country and its people for the crimes they have suffered.

I will end by quoting President Zelensky. In recent days, he said:

“But we know that the lasting peace after victory is achieved by nothing else but the strength of values. First of all, it’s the strength of freedom and of law, which must work to the full to ensure justice. Not hybrid promises instead of human rights, but real freedom. Not hybrid impunity and symbolic formalities, but full-scale justice. Not hybrid peace and constant flashes of violence on the frontline, but reliable peace. When one respects values—true freedom, true justice, true peace is respected”

and that is

“exactly what we need now.”

We should show the same ambition and the same passion for justice, the rule of law and a lasting settlement for the people of Ukraine, after the brutality that they have faced. I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the processes leading towards setting up a special tribunal.

Council of Europe

Debate between Stephen Doughty and John Howell

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree with the principles of what my hon. Friend is saying, and that applies to judgments of other international courts, including the International Court Of Justice, which the Government have also been taken to task over on a number of issues. I mentioned Ukraine, which is crucial in our focus, but the situation in the western Balkans is also very serious at the moment—the Minister is nodding her head. The Council of Europe has been playing a critical role there in strengthening judicial processes and promoting peace and democracy.

The case of Turkey has been mentioned. The Committee of Ministers’ decision to launch infringement proceedings against Ankara over the Osman Kavala case demonstrates its commitment to the Council’s central values without fear or favour. The hon. Member for Henley rightly referenced wider concerns about Turkey and its infringement of civil and political rights.

[John Howell]

Will the hon. Member join us in supporting Kosovo’s membership of the Council of Europe, which will be coming forward later in the year?

[Stephen Doughty]

I certainly would. I plan to visit Kosovo in the near future, and I am sure that that will be an issue on the agenda during my visit there and to the western Balkans. That is something I certainly support.

I want to end by asking the Minister a few questions. Can she give us some reassurances about the Government’s wider commitments to the Council of Europe and the ECHR? The Prime Minister has refused to rule out leaving the ECHR. We have seen the many trailed proposals about a so-called Bill of rights, which could diminish the role of the ECHR and undermine its positions. There is a serious risk of undermining some crucial human rights that we all enjoy. Also, it is worth mentioning the crucial role that the ECHR played in the Good Friday agreement. I would like to see the Minister give some reassurance on that point.

Secondly, can the Minister explain the reasoning behind the Government’s reservation of article 59 of the Istanbul convention, which protects migrant and refugee women from domestic abuse and violence? Finally, given the point I made about working together with allies, and given the scale of the challenges we face across Europe and the world, will she assure us that the Government will stop the unilateral approach that they seem to have drifted towards in recent weeks and months and, instead, work together?

Trade Union Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and John Howell

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. If the Government were genuinely concerned about the levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate to require all bodies to use postal-only ballots, and they would re-run the election for the candidate for Mayor of London using a postal-only ballot.

I simply cannot understand the Government’s argument, and nor can the public. On the one hand, the Government say that they want to increase participation, that we need to ensure that everybody has their say, and that strikes and actions must not take place without everybody’s consent. But they will not extend the most simple modern methods to allow people to participate in a democratic process, which is their right as established in many conventions—indeed, in this country’s historic laws and principles. The Government seek to deny unions the right to exercise that franchise. It simply does not make sense.

It certainly does not make sense, given that secure workplace balloting is already used, as I have described. Why can it not be extended to industrial action ballots and other elections that unions undertake? It is certainly bizarre, given that I can list 40 or 50 different organisations that use e-balloting. The Electoral Reform Society and others have produced plenty of evidence that such methods can be used securely, safely and effectively. They meet all the tests that any Government, employer or union would want to apply to ensure they are safe and secure on both sides. The Government’s arguments and their refusal to engage do not make sense. I hope, given that the Minister said that he will reflect on other parts of the Bill with the best of intentions, that the Government will look at this issue again. I hope they look favourably on our new clauses and commit to supporting them, or at the very least pledge to introduce Government amendments mirroring ours on Report.

I turn briefly to the specifics of the amendments and new clauses. Amendment 39, which I have not touched on in detail so far, relates to the section on political funding. It is absurd and ludicrous that the Bill requires individuals or their authorised agents to deliver opt-in, renewal or withdrawal notices to the trade union head office or branch office personally or by post. The amendment would enable trade union members to renew their opt-in via email or online. Most trade unions are concerned that they will have just three months—we will come on to that issue—to sign members up to their political funds after the Bill comes into force. If members do not opt in within three months, they will no longer be considered valid contributors. That is unworkable and unreasonable, and in practice it will mean that many trade union members who want to pay into the union political fund will be prevented from doing so.

The provisions also fail to recognise that trade unions will be required to revise their rule book to comply. Many trade unions hold their rule-making conference once a year, every two years or, in some cases, every five years. It is therefore unreasonable for the Government to expect trade unions with a political fund to convene a special rule-making conference within three months to comply with the legislation. For many trade unions, it would be simply impossible to book venues and make the relevant logistical arrangements in time. The costs are likely to be astronomical, representatives might not be able to secure the time off to attend the conference and there might be problems with quorums and so on. Again, they will not be able to use electronic methods. People will have to hand in a hand-written notice to a head office or a branch office. Again, it reveals the Government’s true intent. If the Minister does not want the public and trade union members to believe that that is the intent behind the Bill, why does he not go some way towards a compromise and provide methods to encourage the maximum participation, both for opting in to political funds and for ballots?

I have detailed the new clauses. Briefly, for the Committee’s benefit, new clause 1 would permit trade unions to decide to use electronic voting for industrial action ballots. For example, union members would be able to vote online, on smartphones or via secure phone lines. They would also be able to vote electronically in workplaces using secure laptops or electronic booths. New clause 2 would permit unions to use electronic voting in other statutory elections and ballots, including the election of general secretaries, political fund ballots and ballots on mergers. New clauses 4 and 8 would permit trade unions to decide to use similar electronic means to those in new clause 1, or workplace ballots, similar to those used in statutory recognition ballots, for industrial action ballots. In workplace ballots, union members would be able to vote using paper ballot papers and secure ballot boxes in a secure location at the place of work. New clauses 5 and 6 would permit trade unions to use electronic and workplace ballots for all other statutory elections and ballots.

This comprehensive set of amendments and new clauses is about bringing trade unions into the modern age, as the Government say they want to do, and being able to use modern methods that are already used elsewhere and are seen to be successful. Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the Government would wish to oppose them.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I accept that electronic voting is gaining widespread political support, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of the evidence that was put to the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, particularly the evidence from the Open Rights Group. The Guardian commented:

“The chief fear of many is that…electronic voting would make electoral fraud easier, not harder. In the worst-case scenario, rather than forging ballots”—

an individual—

“could simply flip a switch and win the election with no trail in sight.”

The executive director of the Open Rights Group, Jim Killock, said:

“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it. Accountability in most software systems means a clear audit trail of who did what, which of course would violate the basic question of secrecy.”

Regardless of that, the other part of that argument is that the system has to be made so secure and the voting equipment has to be trusted to such an extent that accountability is open to doubt.

[Stephen Doughty]

On the basis of that argument, I have to ask whether the hon. Gentleman considers the election of his colleague, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), as the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London to be unsound in some way.

[John Howell]

I thought the hon. Gentleman would ask that question, so I thought of an answer. The answer is that I am not suggesting that anything at all was wrong with that election or, indeed, other elections that have used electronic voting, but I urge extreme caution where it is applied to elections that are enduring and on a statutory basis.

To finish—I wanted this to be only a brief intervention—I go back to Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group. He said:

“Given the vast numbers of machines that are infected by criminally controlled malware and the temptation for someone to interfere in an election, internet voting is a bad idea.”

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

I think there is a great deal of similarity between using electronic means for an election and for this sort of statutory balloting. The thing that most concerns me is that, as in the words of the Open Rights Group that I just quoted:

“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it.”

The question is how we deal with the problems of security and particularly of accountability.

[Stephen Doughty]

I think that it is important to test this point. The hon. Gentleman is referring to decisions that have statutory implications, are regulated and so on, but these methods are also used by major financial institutions. For example, the Nationwide Building Society, the Yorkshire Building Society, J.P. Morgan and others—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

At their annual general meetings, which are often taking very serious and significant decisions, which are bound by the financial law set out by this House, those organisations are using these systems, so what is the problem? Why is this the only part of our democracy that is not able to use them?

[John Howell]

I think that a number of hon. Members want to intervene. First, does my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble want to intervene on me, as she could not intervene on the intervener?

Trade Union Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and John Howell

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

Q 101 So you would agree that the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government should have the freedom to be able to determine those local relationships, rather than being interfered in by the Bill?

Julia Manning: I think it is a conversation that needs to take place across the country—across the devolved nations.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Q 102 The health service would be subject to the 40% threshold for strikes. Do you think that that has been drawn widely enough, and would you like to see any other bits of the health service included in that?

Julia Manning: In terms of detail, I have not clocked all the amendments, and one of my concerns was that certain areas would be excluded. Maybe you can tell me, for instance, what the terms are for some of the critical services, such as intensive care and emergency services, and whether they are different.

Trade Union Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and John Howell

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

Q 54 John, as you represent a significant number of members in a diffuse sector, what are the Bill’s specific problems and challenges for your members? I wonder in particular what your views are about the Government’s proposals on check-off.

John Hannett: USDAW is the fourth largest union, as you may know, with more than 440,000 members. In fact, it has grown by 100,000 members in the past 10 years. I have spent the past 12 years as general secretary, and seven before as deputy general secretary, promoting the partnership model that Roy referred to. The Bill, in a sense, feels to me more like a control mechanism than a fostering of good industrial relations. What do I mean by that? If you look at the agreement we have with some of the biggest private sector companies, those agreements and those relationships have been informed by, and developed based on, trust, understanding the business and honest representation.

The problem with the Bill is that it sounds like something that is highly political and intended to control behaviour more than foster good industrial relations. We have the biggest private sector partnership agreement in the country, with more than 180,000 members in one of the most successful businesses. All those negotiations take place in a spirit of trust, of building up the relationship and of understanding the sector.

In terms of check-off, this is interesting. If you look at the agreements we have within the biggest organisations in the country, these check-off arrangements have worked. They have been negotiated with those individual companies. To be perfectly honest, without check-off, it would be extremely difficult for a union like mine, which operates in a seven-day, 24-hour sector, where people are working short hours and long hours, and trying to collect union contributions. There is also something significant about check-off. It is a kind of identity between the employer and the union that we co-exist and work together. It is part of their commitment to the union, as we commit to some of the changes.

Roy referred to the many, many changes he has had to oversee. The biggest company we have the agreement with now is going through difficult times. The union is here now, operating and dealing with those issues—not just the good times, but the difficult times too. Is the Bill intended to help industrial relations? I have not seen the evidence. The best way to improve industrial relations is between the employer and the unions where they are represented, in consultation with their employees.

[John Howell]

Q 55 Can I move you on to some questions about the political levy? It seems to me that there is a fundamental principle of fairness in this. Voluntary funds, which is what the political levy is, should not be taken out of someone’s pay packet without their consent. Do you agree with that?

John Hannett: My union has a very clear position on this that has been in place since the union merged in 1947. First, our rulebook is very explicit about the right to be paying the political levy. On our membership form, when somebody joins the trade union, there is a very explicit clause that says, “If you do not wish to pay the levy, you do not have to.” Some of our members exercise that right, so we already cover it with our form and we are transparent about this in all our communications with our members.