---

Russia

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 it 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.