Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-307)
MR JIM
MURPHY MP, MS
SHAN MORGAN
AND MS
SHELAGH BROOKS
12 SEPTEMBER 2007
Q300 Ms Stuart: So we can assume
that when the final text comes to us it will say "will".
Any court knows what the word "shall" means. If it is
meant to mean "will", "will" will be used.
Mr Murphy: I am not going to speculate
about which word will replace "shall". My Dutch is much
better than my French—
Q301 Ms Stuart: It is your English
that I am worried about. Will it say "shall" or "will"?
Mr Murphy: Sometimes I think that
my Dutch is better than my English.
Q302 Chairman: The next time that
we have representatives from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
as well as having a Europe specialist and a legal adviser with
you, perhaps you could bring your linguists.
Mr Murphy: Is that to translate
from Glaswegian, Mr Gapes?
Chairman: Yes, we will go there as well.
There are some things on which we will write to you, but can we
ask you some questions about Russia? Fabian Hamilton.
Q303 Mr Hamilton: Thank you. Minister,
when you gave evidence to us in July, we discussed the situation
regarding the UK and Russia, and our deteriorating relations following
the lack of co-operation in the case of Alexander Litvinenko and
the murder inquiry. You will recall, I think, that you gave evidence
just two days after we expelled four diplomats. Have the measures
announced in July had any impact on the UK's official dealings
with Russia, including anti-terrorist co-operation?
It was also mentioned earlier, in May, that
a Minister from the then Department of Trade and Industry, now
the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform,
would be travelling to Russia in July. Did that Minister travel
to Russia, and what was the outcome? Are there any signs that
the measures announced in July are getting us any further co-operation
from Russia in the Litvinenko case? Finally, what representations
has the FCO made about the latest developments concerning the
BBC World Service in Russia, and what results have we had so far?
Mr Murphy: The Foreign Secretary
announced on 16 July, I think, measures on co-operation with the
Russian intelligence services, judicial co-operation and some
visa issues. In terms of the announcements, we have not broadened
those specific measures. That is the sphere and scope of the measures
that we announced, and we remain committed to them. We have not
broadened them in any sense.
I tried to emphasise when I gave evidence to
the Committee in July that our relationship with Russia is such
that, if we disagree, we think that it is important for us to
say so. Russia remains a very close strategic partner on a whole
series of issues, but it would be quite wrong of us not to voice
our concerns in the same way that this Committee has voiced its
concerns about specifics of the Russian Government and authorities'
practices on human rights and other issues.
As for the visit by a Government Minister, a
visit by Malcolm Wicks took place. I am told that it was very
constructive.
Ms Stuart: I saw him at the airport.
Mr Murphy: Where were you going?
Ms Stuart: Moscow.
Mr Murphy: He was accompanied
by a Swedish Minister, to whom I spoke the weekend before the
visit about nuclear decontamination and the important issues on
which we still remain very close to Russia and in which we have
a shared ambition.
There was some public comment that we had suspended
our co-operation with Russia on anti-terrorism. We have not, and
we will not. If our systems in the UK suspect that there is a
threat to Russia, it is right and proper that we should share
that information with the Russian authorities, and we expect a
similar degree of bilateral co-operation from the Russians. It
is not about suspending co-operation on anti-terrorism at all.
It is about the specific measures announced by the Foreign Secretary
in July.
The BBC is caught, pretty clearly, in a maze
of legal bureaucracy in some of its operations in Russia. Those
problems could be overcome if the Russian authorities wished them
to be. We continue to believe that the World Service—I think
that it is on the FM frequency—should be allowed to broadcast
and go back on air. It is within the power and the gift of the
Russian authorities to make that happen. The BBC has been frustrated
in an important way in broadcasting objective and high-quality
journalism in Russia, and there is no reason for it.
Having said that, we remain committed to a strong
relationship with Russia. I spent the weekend in Ms Osborne's
constituency, and spent two or three hours with the Russian deputy
Foreign Minister at a fantastic event in Ayrshire. It was clear
that Russian Ministers and officials have a continuing desire
not to allow the very strong disagreements that we have with Russia
on specific matters to contaminate a genuinely important strategic
partnership.
Q304 Andrew Mackinlay: In the middle
of August, I received from our colleagues in the Home Office replies
to some written parliamentary questions—I had waited five
weeks. I assume that you would have been sent copies. I asked
how many requests the Russian Federation had made over the past
10 years to extradite people from the United Kingdom and return
them to its justice administration. The initial reply was that
there had been about 27 requests, with an indication that none
of those had been conceded by the United Kingdom. I queried it,
because it was an ambiguous reply in a number of respects. The
Home Office then, by letter rather than by parliamentary reply,
said that the number was in fact 13 and that there were a number
of repeat requests. I want to place that on the record.
If you remember, during all the heightened talk
at the time of Litvinenko and the expulsion of various people,
the British Government were putting around how unfair and unreasonable
Russia was in not extraditing somebody to London. There was no
reference to the fact that there had not been one extradition
at the request of the Russian Federation during the past 10 years.
Regardless of whether the number is 13 or 27, that is the fact.
Does the Foreign Office have a view on this? Does it think that
we are the Archangel Gabriel, Russia is wrong and that we should
have extradited to us those whom we want from Moscow but that
things should not happen the other way round? That approach is
untenable.
Mr Murphy: I am not in a position
to comment on the specific parliamentary answers from the Home
Office. I shall make it my business to read them, but in mid-August
I was enjoying my family holiday in Blackpool.
Andrew Mackinlay: So was I, but I phoned
them up from my holiday.
Mr Murphy: In Blackpool?
Q305 Andrew Mackinlay: No, but carry
on. It doesn't matter where you were. What do you say about it?
Mr Murphy: It does matter. Blackpool
is an enjoyable place to spend a holiday, but I am not here on
behalf of the Blackpool tourist agency. My mother-in-law lives
in Blackpool.
The serious point is that the Foreign Office's
view is that what happened on the Litvinenko case, as we discussed
in July, was a matter of such importance—
Andrew Mackinlay: To us.
Mr Murphy: It was a matter of
importance to us and, given the statement of the European Union,
it was a concern to all other 26 member states of the European
Union. Nationals of 18 member states had to be tested for polonium
poisoning, so it was an issue not just for the United Kingdom,
but for others. That is why all member states rightly take a strong
view about the murder of one of their citizens on the streets
of a capital city. That is our view.
Our view is also that there was a lack of willingness
and co-operation on the part of the Russian authorities. It would
have been within their power, given their system, to have enacted
such co-operation, and we took the measures that we did because
of that and because of the severe nature of the crime that was
committed.
Chairman: I am sorry, Mr Mackinlay, but
we cannot pursue this indefinitely. I want to get one last question
in—
Andrew Mackinlay: I did not want to know
about his mother-in-law; I wanted an answer to my question of
why he justifies 13 requests being refused and our expecting them
to respond to our requests. That is not an unreasonable approach.
Chairman: You have placed that on the
record. No doubt, you will get a note—
Andrew Mackinlay: Or I will get a ticking-off
from the security services here in London.
Chairman: I call Sir John Stanley to
ask our final question.
Q306 Sir John Stanley: As you know,
some members of the Committee visited Belgrade and Pristina in
July. I think that everybody would agree that it is now inconceivable
that President Putin will allow a resolution through the United
Nations Security Council allowing Kosovo independence. If the
current negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina come to naught,
as seems likely, is it still the British Government's position
that Kosovo should be granted independence?
Mr Murphy: The end point of this
process is that Kosovo should be granted independence, yes. Our
preference is to establish that through the United Nations. It
is a substantial diplomatic challenge. We are not under any illusion
as to how difficult it will be, but we continue to work through
the UN to help make that happen. Our view is that independence
for Kosovo along the lines of the Ahtisaari plan, in the absence
of an alternative agreed by Pristina and Belgrade, is the best
solution.
Q307 Chairman: Minister, in the light
of that, you will be aware probably more than anyone, but I was
made aware forcefully last week, that there are at least five,
possibly seven, EU countries on the record as opposing an independent
Kosovo and even opposing the Ahtisaari plan, even though they
have signed up to it. Do you expect therefore, in those circumstances,
a split within the European Union?
Mr Murphy: That is possible. Other
countries have offered their public reflections, in the same way
that I have stated our policy today. We are confident in the way
in which the process is evolving. The United Kingdom and others
have shown a real determination to explore every potential diplomatic
avenue, and having done that, we think some of the concerns of
other EU member states will be overcome. On that basis, I am confident
that the scenario, which in the past would have been possible,
is now unlikely to arise.
Importantly, it is also about retaining a degree
of stability on the ground, because that is going to upset and
have a dramatic effect not only for the people of Kosovo, but
also on the diplomatic process around us, through the UN and elsewhere.
That is one of the reasons why I think it is helpful to confirm
to the Committee today that the UK Government have invited the
team of unity from Kosovo to meet us in London, to reassure them
of our continued support for where this process should conclude,
and to encourage them in the same way that we encourage others
to retain a degree of patience. That is sometimes difficult, but
it is of crucial importance as the process comes to a conclusion,
up to 10 December.
Chairman: No doubt we will revisit the
issue. Having been in Kosovo, it is quite clear that you are facing
completely diametrically opposed positions and it seems that there
is no possibility of an agreement internally; we will come back
to you and press you on the matter over coming weeks.
Minister, I thank you and your colleagues for
coming today, for two reasons especially: we are in a recess,
as we have already commented, and you have given us more of your
time than we asked for. We wish you the best for the rest of the
summer recess.
| 
