25 July 2007 : Column 245WH

25 July 2007 : Column 245WH

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 25 July 2007

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

Russia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Khan.]

9.30 am

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): Thank you, Mr. Bayley, and good morning to everyone. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of UK relations with Russia. Recent weeks have shown that this subject is very much on the minds of the Government, Her Majesty’s Opposition and many hon. Members. For the record, I am the chairman of the all-party group on Russia.

Despite the events of the past few weeks, there is more to unite than divide the United Kingdom and Russia, and it is important to start the debate on that note. Currently, the UK and Russia co-operate on a range of important international issues, such as nuclear non-proliferation, climate change—both countries are, of course, Kyoto signatories—and people trafficking. Russia is also a key member of the middle east Quartet, and is a member of the G8 and the UN Security Council. In many of those international bodies there is good co-operation between the two countries, and long may that continue. I hope that relations will soon be restored on the important issue of co-operation on counter-terrorism.

One certainty on which I hope that we can all agree today is that organisations such as al-Qaeda are as much a threat to Russian interests and the way of life of ordinary Russians as they are to UK citizens. I hope that the Minister will comment on how quickly he feels we will be able to restore co-operation on the important issue of counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering and sharing.

The other key issue is trade. Russia and the United Kingdom are doing more trade than ever before. Twenty years ago, trade was minimal, but 400 UK companies now operate in Russia. In the first three months of this year, the UK invested $3.1 billion in Russia, and last year bilateral trade was around $10 billion to $12 billion. Those who watch the City will know that there are currently $13 billion-worth of stocks in Russian companies on the London stock exchange and the alternative investment market. In fact, about 42 Russian companies are listed on both exchanges. Later this year, the Rusal mining company will hopefully be listed in London. It is important that London remain the place where many Russian companies want to raise their finance and capital because there are other continental competitors.

The last few months and weeks have been dominated by the case of the sad and tragic death of Alexander Litvinenko. His death was tragic and sinister in equal measure, and his killers deserve to be brought to justice. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should be murdered in such a way: with a nuclear toxin
25 July 2007 : Column 246WH
on British soil, which also put other UK nationals at risk. That put extreme danger on to the streets of London and I hope that we will soon be able to resolve the current impasse and bring the main suspect before the courts. I will return to that later.

More recently, it was alleged that somebody was sent from Russia apparently to assassinate a political dissident who is resident in the UK. If somebody was allegedly prevented from doing so, it is a great mystery that they were not arrested. The charge suggested by the police through the newspapers was that of conspiracy to murder. If it was known that a person was going to attempt to kill a Russian dissident living in London, why were they not arrested, subsequently charged and brought before the courts? A court date should certainly have been given. Why was the person supposedly allowed to return to Russia? It seems contradictory that we are asking for a Russian national who is suspected of murder to be extradited, while at the same time releasing a Russian national in London about whom we have evidence of involvement in a conspiracy to murder. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

The Litvinenko case raises the issue of political dissidents of whatever nationality living in the United Kingdom. It is not acceptable for such people to endanger UK citizens through things that they might do or say. If we can have acceptable behaviour contracts for people who graffiti our towns and villages, we could at least have some sort of behaviour contracts for political dissidents. It is extraordinary that many of those people are increasingly abusing the good faith and trust put in them and using the political asylum system as a cover from which they will often make unhelpful comments about other nations. It is unacceptable that certain political dissidents in this country have called for the violent overthrow of a democratically elected Government, even if the integrity of the democratic election in Russia seven years ago is questionable. Nevertheless, the Government were democratically elected and it is absolutely wrong that President Putin should be put in the position of having somebody in London calling for his violent overthrow.

A further point is that of extradition. Again, it appears slightly contradictory that the Russian Government have asked for the extradition of 21 people from the United Kingdom and, as I understand it, not one of those requests has been granted, and yet the UK is demanding the extradition of the main suspect in the Litvinenko case. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to draw some kind of moral equivalence between the extradition requests from Russia and from Britain. The truth is that when the extradition of Mr. Zakayev was sought by the Russian authorities, the British judge, who acted on an entirely independent basis and had nothing to do with the Government, pointed out that one of the reasons why his extradition was being sought was that he was meant to have murdered a Russian Orthodox priest. The Russian Orthodox priest concerned gave evidence in the case to point out that he had not been murdered.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but that was not one of the cases to which I was referring.


25 July 2007 : Column 247WH

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is important because Britain has a well-established process under which extradition is operated that is independent of the Executive. The decision is made by the courts on the balance of evidence put before them. There is a world of difference between that and the case of Mr. Lugovoy, in which it was a decision of the Executive in Russia to refuse even to contemplate extradition. We in the House of Commons ought at least to say that we have faith in our court processes.

Mark Pritchard: I do have faith in our court process—certainly a lot more than I have in the Russian court process. I am merely asking questions; I am not necessarily stating a position in the comments that I have made thus far. This is a debate, and I think that it is right that such questions be raised. Certainly, some people have commented to me on the contradiction.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of law and, in particular, extradition law. Again, it seems rather puzzling that the Government have asked for the extradition of the main suspect in the Litvinenko case, Mr. Lugovoy, knowing full well that the Russian constitution forbids the extradition of Russian citizens. It might be said that Russia could just change its constitution, but could it? How easy would that be? Basically, to change the Russian constitution, two votes in Parliament and a national referendum would be required. I think that, 18 months ago, some pro-Putin MPs suggested that the Russian constitution be changed to allow President Putin to serve a third term. That was refused. Even if Putin himself wanted to extradite Mr. Lugovoy, he could not because the Russian constitution forbids it.

I am a supporter and fan of the Foreign Office, but am puzzled by the discussions that must have gone on in the Minister’s office. Why ask Russia for something that clearly it could not deliver? Would it not have been more sensible to ask Russia—robustly even—for something that might cause it a little diplomatic pain but could at least be delivered? If the British Government continue to ask for the extradition of Mr. Lugovoy, we will not make progress where it is needed. Clearly, as I have said, the Russians cannot change their constitution unless it is voted on twice by Parliament and followed by a national referendum.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Does my hon. Friend accept that even if the constitution could be, and were, changed, it would not accord with our principles of the rule of law for it to be applied retrospectively?

Mark Pritchard: As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I would add that we should put the shoe on the other foot. If the United Kingdom was in the same position, would we change our constitution over a murder suspect? I suspect not. Of course, there is also a big difference because we do not have a written constitution, whereas the Russians do. That is an important legal point that follows on from the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

I shall return to Russian political dissidents and one gentleman in particular living in London for whom, in the last 10 days, I understand, an arrest warrant has
25 July 2007 : Column 248WH
been issued by a Brazilian judge over allegations of money laundering and other crimes. Will the Minister put on the record whether a formal extradition request has been made by the Brazilian authorities for Mr. Berezovsky? It would, again, seem contradictory if the UK Government said no, at the same time as asking for the extradition of Mr. Lugovoy from Russia. I hope that if that request has arrived or is to arrive, the UK Government will assist our close ally and friend, Brazil, with its extradition request. I think that that would be very helpful because it would send out a clear message that the British public are sick and tired of having to pay for the cover of many of these people.

We have heard about close protection. Forgive me for raising quite a few questions, but will the Minister tell us who is paying for the close protection of those whose lives are apparently under threat? Is it the British taxpayer or the individuals themselves? My constituents in Shropshire are more interested in protecting their streets and their homes from burglars, than in paying for the close police protection of political dissidents who perhaps could be a little more circumspect in what they say. I think that it would be rather surprising, given the scarce resources of the Metropolitan police, to find that armed, or even unarmed, protection is being given to such people.

I hope that soon we can find a third or middle way to deal with Mr. Lugovoy—the main suspect in the Litvinenko case. That is how I started today and it remains my position. What about having a court in Russia, with a Russian, British and an independent third-country judge? Or what about a court hearing in a third country, again with a Russian, UK and an independent judge? A range of options are available that might allow someone to be brought to justice for this vicious and cruel crime and provide the Russian Government with a way of getting round the legal point on the constitution. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): The hon. Gentleman is putting forward some interesting suggestions, but does he share my concern about the quality and independence of the Russian judiciary? Does he recognise the comments of the chairman of the Russian constitutional court, which were reported in Izvestiya in October 2004? He said that

and that, in reality, people who try to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights, for example, find that mysteriously their legal advisers are arrested or disappear. As a result they are intimidated when trying to take such cases forward. How can we have any confidence in a justice system that is so manipulative?

Mark Pritchard: There is no doubt that there is a great deal of need for improvement in the Russian judicial system. Some might say, however, that the same applies, although not on the same scale, to the UK judicial system and that some of our judges are completely out of touch with reality when they hand down laughable sentences for quite serious crimes. That is not a fair comparison, but I wanted to put it on the record. In defence of the British judiciary, if we had a British judge, alongside a Russian judge and an independent judge, those challenges could be overcome.


25 July 2007 : Column 249WH

I am very glad that, in the last few days, the Russian Foreign Minister has stated that Russia would like to see the normalisation of relations with the United Kingdom. That is to be welcomed. I think that the Russians could have done a lot more than expel the four UK diplomats. I am glad that they did not, and I hope that we can now move on. If a third, middle or independent way cannot be found to bring Mr. Lugovoy before the courts, what will the Government’s position be? Will more Russian diplomats be expelled or will we sit around the table and find a way forward?

Over the next few weeks, the UK Government need to work with Russia on some key issues, one of which is Kosovo, on which I hope that the Russians will not use their veto. I hope also that Prime Minister Çeku of Kosovo will not use Albanian independence day to declare unilateral independence for Kosovo. That would be unhelpful. I must say, however, that it was also very unhelpful of the US President to declare Kosovo de facto independent. We need far more robust evidence of United Nations resolution criteria being implemented in Kosovo. A mutual agreement is needed on Kosovo. I am very concerned that the previous agreement on the region is starting to come apart. It is important that that does not happen, but Russia must play its part and not use its veto in the United Nations.

Another issue is missile defence. The Russians and the Americans have been discussing a possible joint venture in Azerbaijan. I am not talking about the Polish or Czech ballistic missile shield. Nevertheless, our relationship with Russia indirectly affects on occasion the relationship that the United States might have or seek to have with Russia. On ballistic missile defence, it is important that nothing that the British Government do over the next few weeks and months unsettles the discussions that are going on with regard to Azerbaijan and the potential for partnership.

The other key issue is Iran. Russia, being a key ally of Iran, is a key player. We need to ensure that we work closely with Russia on that.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Rhondda is present, because he amended early-day motion 1424, about human rights and freedom of speech in Russia, which was originally tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Russia needs to do far more to protect its religious minorities, get off the backs of non-governmental organisations and promote equal rights. I saw the scenes in Moscow some weeks ago. The physical and brutal attacks on homosexuals were completely unacceptable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on his research on human rights in Russia, because I know that he has done a lot of work on that.

It is also completely unacceptable that journalists continue to be killed. If Russia wants to be taken seriously in the international bodies that I have mentioned and if it wants the west to have new engagement, many of these issues must be addressed. They are not soft issues; they go to the very heart of how a country thinks and operates. I hope that the Minister shares my concern about the number of journalists who have been murdered and will comment on that.

There is, however, a future, which is a post-Putin future. I understand that President Putin is going off to Sochi to run the winter Olympics, which the Russians
25 July 2007 : Column 250WH
have just won; he will oversee that project. I hope that, somewhere in the Foreign Office, people will be discussing a post-Putin relationship with Russia. On that overarching umbrella point, I would be interested to hear what the UK’s position is vis-Ã -vis relations with Russia. It was only some years ago that we were talking about Russia being part of the wider European family and involved in closer co-operation with Europe, yet over the past few weeks and months—perhaps over the past two years, to be precise—we have heard less talk of that.

I think that, by Russia coming alongside Europe, we will be able to lock in trade, and if we lock in trade, hopefully we will be able to lock in democracy, and if we lock in democracy, hopefully it will follow that some of these important issues relating to freedom of speech, protection of religious minorities, equal rights and human rights are addressed. I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say what the UK position is on Russia and future strategic partnerships.

To conclude, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was completely unacceptable, and the way in which it was done was, as I said, sinister and tragic in equal measure, but I hope that, as a result of that murder, the Government will begin to have a policy on how political dissidents operate in this country. If anything positive could come out of Mr. Litvinenko’s death, it would be new thinking on how political dissidents are allowed to operate in this country.

I should like to put it on the record, in case Mrs. Litvinenko reads the record of the debate, that our thoughts and prayers are with her and we are all very sorry about the death of her husband. We all hope that his killer will be brought to justice.

9.55 am

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on seeking the debate, which is important. Clearly, the bilateral relationship with Russia has moved on, in a very difficult way, over recent days. However, I must distance myself quite considerably from some of the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, at least the first part of which seemed to be far more critical of the British position than the Russian position. That is not a reality that I recognise. We should say from the outset that the murder of a British national, Alexander Litvinenko, in the streets of Britain, even if he had left Russia and whatever his background was, is unacceptable in every way. That is unequivocal. There is no redeeming feature; no other side to it. We can only condemn the murder and the murderers.

I do not know what the trail of evidence is in respect of the person named—Mr. Lugovoi. That ought properly to be a matter for the courts, but it ought to be something on which the Russians want to co-operate, because unfortunately the Litvinenko case has crystallised many of the concerns that people who are well disposed towards Russia have about our bilateral relationship with Russia and more generally about the role that Russia wants to play in the wider Europe and on the wider world stage.


Next Section Index Home Page