Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
MR JIM
MURPHY MP, MICHAEL
DAVENPORT AND
DAMIAN THWAITES
18 JULY 2007
Q100 Mr. Hamilton: The
Chairman mentioned earlier that, when we were in Moscow—I
was part of the visit—we went to an organisation that was
helped considerably by the Global Partnership. That scheme is
due to expire in 2012. In the light of what has been happening,
do you think that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will renew
the scheme?
Mr. Murphy: In terms of individual
decisions on funding renewal, we continue to keep those things
very carefully under review in a detailed way. But as a consequence
of events over recent months—more precisely, this week—we
have made, as a UK Government, a targeted, specific, measured,
detailed response to Russian failure to co-operate. What we have
announced in this process is really where our intention is in
containing it. We have no ambition to go wider and no ambition
to go into the types of fields that you and the Chairman have
spoken about today.
Q101 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
Would you consider trying a suspect in a court outside the United
Kingdom, but not in Russia?
Mr. Murphy: No.
Q102 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
You are ruling that out unconditionally?
Mr. Murphy: We are ruling that
out because it does not suit our purposes and does not suit the
stated purposes and concerns of the Russians, in terms of their
constitutional bar and the extradition. So it does not suit either
nation's purposes in terms of the idea of a third country.
Q103 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
Are you, therefore, prepared to escalate this dispute? It is certain
that Russia would take retaliatory action. We will then be in
a position of having to either escalate or call a ceasefire, as
it were. Are you determined to get the only possible resolution,
as you have just said, which is to get the suspect extradited
and try him here? Is that your absolute aim and no other?
Mr. Murphy: That is our aim. In
terms of how we respond to any Russian response, I do not think
it would be helpful—I am sure you would agree—for
us to speculate today.
Q104 Andrew Mackinlay:
On the expulsion of these four Russians, perhaps Mr. Thwaites
or Mr. Davenport can help us. To measure this, we need to know
precisely how many diplomats they were allowed to have. In the
category we are talking about, what amount—not necessarily
in London—was agreed with the Foreign Office before the
announcement and after it?
Mr. Murphy: The Russian complement
of staff is 77.
Q105 Andrew Mackinlay:
So it is now 73.
Mr. Murphy: Minus four equals
73.
Q106 Andrew Mackinlay:
So in six months or a year, when I ask you what the numbers are,
the numbers should tally—should they? You look anxious about
that, Mr. Davenport. You understand what I am getting at.
Mr. Murphy: Mr. Mackinlay, I look
forward to your asking the question and I look forward to the
answer. But it would not be helpful for me to speculate today
as to what the number would be. We have taken the measures—
Q107 Andrew Mackinlay:
It was 77, but it is now down to 73.
Mr. Murphy: Yes.
Q108 Andrew Mackinlay:
And that is people who are accredited.
Mr. Murphy: Yes, absolutely.
Q109 Andrew Mackinlay:
They can put in Joe Bloggs, but that—
Mr. Murphy: Mr. Mackinlay, you
may find this helpful: it is broadly similar to the numbers that
we would have in Russia.
Q110 Andrew Mackinlay:
My second point is that, for the reasons the Secretary of State
has outlined, you have got sanctions on visas, which you have
outlined. Will those stay in perpetuity, unless and until the
Russian Federation extradites Mr. Lugovoi?
Mr. Murphy: We suspended this
process—
Q111 Andrew Mackinlay:
Yes, but will the suspension endure?
Mr. Murphy: It would be wrong—I
think you would accept—only three days into announcing the
suspension, to speculate as to when it will be lifted. It is certainly
our intention that the suspension is conditions-based, rather
than time-based.
Q112 Andrew Mackinlay:
Let me be candid with you. I think you rushed into this, and when
you put things on, there comes a day when you have to put them
off and let people back. I want to know when I can measure that
as a parliamentarian. When will I know? Will you come to Parliament,
make a written statement and announce when there will be a variation?
You can couple it with a statement saying, "We have had great
advances for x, y, z reason." There was great trumpeting
this week about the announcement; I want to know when there will
be erosion of that robust statement. Will you be telling Parliament
and the people?
Mr. Murphy: I do not think it
is a fair assessment to claim that there was trumpeting of the
announcement. It was a decision taken, and an announcement made,
with deep regret and after an awful lot of consideration.
Q113 Andrew Mackinlay:
I do not want to argue over the word; use whatever words you like.
Mr. Murphy: Of course, Mr. Mackinlay,
but they were your words, not mine. There was no trumpeting; we
did not seek to trumpet at any point in the process. We do not
seek to tub-thump, trumpet or to be belligerent. I know you accept
that we now find ourselves in a very serious situation.
Andrew Mackinlay: Absolutely. Mr.
Murphy: In response to your specific question, I will
undertake to confirm to this Committee and to the House any change
in the position in future.
Andrew Mackinlay: I am a very
happy man.
Q114 Mr. Purchase: I
would like to go further to try and discover the aims of the policy
and what the end game may be. You mentioned that it is a terrible
crime on the streets of London; equally terrible are the drive-by
shootings in London, Birmingham and Manchester. In terms of terribleness,
I do not know whether Litvinenko's death is any worse than that
of two young women in Birmingham. It is a bad thing, it is dreadful,
but it is not as though it is uncommon in Britain. I really want
to know what you are aiming to do. I wonder why there is such
a carry-on, and such a performance about it.
I also mention Berezovsky. Why do we not send
him back to Russia? He is calling for the overthrow of the Russian
Government. This is a man who should be subject to the new laws
we made in the late 1990s to try to prevent that kind of activity.
Have we tried a more diplomatic approach, saying, "Okay,
you can have him, if we can have him," and going down the
usual channels. Just what is your end game? What do you want to
achieve?
Mr. Murphy: I do not think it
would be helpful for us to get into a process of "You can
have him, if we can have him," to use your colloquial expression.
The processes are not connected in that way, Mr. Purchase, as
you know. In terms of the comparison with drive-by shootings in
Birmingham or in any of our cities, there is a clear difference.
Without going into the evidence and the nature of the extradition
requests from the Crown Prosecution Service to the Russian Government,
a substantial amount of detail has been compiled by independent
UK authorities, which led them to believe that a Russian national
had a case to answer for the murder of a British national in Britain.
It is entirely appropriate that the CPS, after coming to that
assessment independently, makes that independent application to
the Russian authorities. That is what they have done; that is
why it is significantly different from the type of scenario that
you spoke about. In the case of Berezovsky and others, there
is a similar independent process in the UK in which the CPS carries
out an assessment of comments or actions of individuals who live
in the United Kingdom, under whatever status, as to whether they
would legitimately have a case to answer. Sometimes that does
not translate directly into the Russian understanding.
Q115 Mr. Purchase: With
respect, Minister, I am not any closer. If you want to say this
is our process, it is clearly in the Russian constitution that
they cannot allow extradition. It is also clear that we have held
Babar Ahmad for three years, against the Americans wanting him
to be extradited, on very similar grounds of creating terrorist
websites. We cannot have fish of one and fowl of another. Either
we have consistency or we begin to look a little foolish, and
I am still pressing you to tell me what the end game will be.
Where will it all finish and what is its great purpose?
Mr. Murphy: The end game for us
is Russian co-operation with the independent judicial process
of the United Kingdom, and the extradition of one individual against
whom substantial evidence has been compiled to legitimise the
request for extradition. On the matter of the Russian constitution,
there is an acknowledgement that other countries have been in
a similar situation but have found a way of co-operating on extradition
that the Russians have seemed entirely unwilling to seek. That
is the important point for us—the Russians have failed to
co-operate or to register the severity with which we consider
the matter. The Germans, for example, had certain constitutional
issues with regard to extradition, but they found a way of co-operating
with their independent judicial process. The Russians not only
failed to do that but failed to attempt to do so.
Q116 Mr. Purchase: I
shall leave it there, but what are we doing about Berezovsky?
Are we going to prosecute him for doing something that is against
British law—plotting sedition against a foreign Government
on British soil?
Mr. Murphy: I am sure that you
and I agree that it is not for a UK Minister or a UK Member of
Parliament to set the threshold as to whether an individual has
a case to answer in the case of allegations against that person.
That is an issue for the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS continues
to analyse and assess comments and alleged comments by individuals
in the United Kingdom, and if it feels that their comments or
activities are above the established threshold for a case to answer,
it follows them up. No such conclusion has been drawn by the independent
CPS. It is important to emphasise the independent nature
of the CPS process—not for the purpose of our conversation,
but for others who might be listening elsewhere.
Q117 Chairman: May I
raise a related issue? A large number of Russians live in the
UK. Some are here to study, some are here working and others are
here, it seems, because they are very wealthy and they find this
country a favourable environment in which to live. Has the Foreign
Office ever raised with the Treasury the foreign policy implications
of the availability of our tax regime to certain non-UK citizens,
which has the result that some people have chosen to live in London
rather than in other countries?
Mr. Murphy: You are right that
there has been a remarkable increase in the number of Russian
visitors to the United Kingdom. We very much welcome that. Of
course, there has also been an increase in UK citizens going to
Russia, and that can only be positive as well. There was a 23%
increase in visa applications last year on the year before. As
to the taxation system of the United Kingdom, that is not an issue
for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; it remains an issue for
the Treasury, and we have not raised it.
Q118 Chairman: But I
hope that you would accept that many people come to this country
from other countries because they are attracted for financial
or economic reasons. One of the consequences of that might be
that we have people who choose to live in the UK but who are still
influential in their home countries.
Mr. Murphy: Of course, many people
from almost every nation in the world live in London; that is
one of its attractions. The Government's view is that in general
that is a positive recent development, and one that we should
welcome. The tax arrangements for such individuals are and will
remain an issue for the Treasury. In advance of coming here,
I anticipated upsetting a number of organisations and individuals.
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is not going to be one of them;
I am not going to tread on its territory.
Chairman: Perhaps this Committee will
pursue it through other routes. Let me bring in Sandra Osborne.
Q119 Sandra Osborne:
May I ask some questions on democracy and human rights? The FCO's
human rights report cites Russia as a country of concern in relation,
for example, to the treatment of non-governmental organisations
in civil society, police and judicial reform, in addition to worries
about torture and impunity in Chechnya. How do you assess current
trends in Russia regarding democracy and human rights?
Mr. Murphy: My frank assessment
is that Russia has not made the progress for which many of us
had hoped in the mid to late 1990s. There are all sorts of assessments
about why that is so, whether it is measured in the context of
media freedom and multiplicity of political parties, and what
generates it in terms of democratic space. As for NGOs, they can
be a remarkable power for progress in Russia. Last year, about
15 Government Ministers visited Russia, five of whom went specifically
to meet Russian NGOs. That certifies how important we consider
they are and how much we value their work. We also fund important
NGO and agency projects. For example, an important project is
a public prison inspection process, as is working with the equivalent
of the Russian NUJ in defence of press freedom. NGOs are a crucial
part of a force for good, democracy and human rights in Russia
in the context of a relative closing of that space in recent years.
| 
