---

Russia

I totally agree. Any examination of Russia’s economic future would show a number of things, one of which—this should be obvious—is that Russia is using the high value of gas and oil and will continue to do so for a long time. However, the benefits should be transferred not simply to narrow areas of exploitation and to industries downstream from oil and gas, but to the Russian economy more broadly. To do that, however, Russia’s antiquated oil and gas production process will have to be modernised, which means that a deal must be struck, not necessarily with the west itself, but with western companies, which have the technology to transform that production process. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that uncertainties in Russia mean that there will be increasing reluctance to reach such a deal. That takes us back to a central issue that I have discussed on many occasions with Members of the Russian Duma and with other people in Russia. There is a real issue about the incompetence of the Russian courts and the lack of certainty about what they will do, because there is a perception that they can be pressurised by the political elite. As long as that continues, and the courts are not prepared to treat fairly all those who use the Russian legal system, investors from this country and elsewhere will remain uncertain about whether it is possible to get a proper economic return on their investment. There are therefore major issues about the weakness and, indeed, the deterioration of the Russian institutions that should provide the framework for the trading system that the hon. Member for The Wrekin recommends. I do not want to take up too much time, because other colleagues want to speak in this important debate. However, we have a genuine problem around the Litvinenko case, and the Government must pursue the matter and take a high-minded and proper view of what happens, because the issue is not negotiable. A technical solution involving institutions such as those created for the Lockerbie trials—third-country trials—might be a possibility. The difficulty, however, is that an extradition process that prevents the extradition of any Russian citizen to Britain would also prevent extradition to a benign third country. Equally, although it is interesting to speculate about courts in Russia made up of British and Russian judges and all the rest, there would still be a lack of confidence about the capacity and ambition of the Russian legal process to guarantee a trial that is fair to the accused and, in this case, the Litvenenko family and which allowed the pursuit of justice more generally so that those who are properly accused and found guilty know that their sentence reflects the crimes that they have committed.