---

Russia

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bayley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on his recent achievement of becoming chairman of the all-party group on Russia, and on securing this debate on an important topic. He introduced the debate in typically robust style. I noted the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) who brought his considerable experience as an ex-Foreign Office Minister to our deliberations. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) not only tweaked the Minister’s nose, but rightly reminded the House that the tragic murder that I am about to touch on took place in his constituency. He also raised the implications of those events for other constituents whom he represents. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised a constituency point in the context of the debate and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised Russia’s human rights record, particularly the treatment of journalists, which concerns us all. That was also touched on by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter). It is a pleasure to see the Minister, my opposite number, in his place. For some curious reason, we seem to be seeing rather a lot of each other and I believe that we are meeting later this afternoon on an entirely different matter. The debate is on the relatively broad topic of UK-Russia relations, and I do not want to use the limited time available to speak only about the Litvinenko case. Nevertheless, this issue clearly affects the relationship between our two countries, so I want to make a few comments on where matters now sit. Let me say at the outset that Her Majesty’s Opposition have supported and continue to support both the tone and substance of the Government’s response to Russia's refusal to extradite Andrey Lugovoy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said in his response to the Foreign Secretary's statement on 16 July,"““Across British politics, we are united in regarding this matter with the utmost seriousness.””—[Official Report, 16 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 23.]" That remains the case. Britain has the right to expect co-operation from Russia in the extradition of Mr. Lugovoy but, unfortunately, that has not been forthcoming. Given that failure, it was right and proportionate for the British Government to take action to expel four Russian diplomats. The Russian reaction to the expulsion of the four diplomats came on 19 July with the expulsion of four British diplomats from our Embassy in Moscow and a statement that it might end co-operation in the fight against terrorism, which we would obviously regret. That is an entirely unjustified act, and the only correct response, as the Foreign Secretary made clear, remains the extradition of Mr. Lugovoy. The Russians have stated that one reason for their failure to extradite Mr. Lugovoy is that its constitution disallows it. However, on Monday, Britain’s Ambassador to Russia, Sir Anthony Brenton, said:"““Russia’s constitution, like those of other states, is clearly capable of interpretation in the light of circumstances””." I am sure that the Minister heard that. As the Minister knows, I have a great interest in the interpretation of constitutions, particularly at the moment, so I would be interested to know what advice he has received on Russia’s constitution in the light of its responsibilities under the 1957 European convention on extradition. I would be interested to have some insight into the Foreign Office’s legal advice on that. On 20 July, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov apparently began to lower the temperature by suggesting that the"““Kremlin is interested in having relations with Britain brought back to normal."" The following day, President Putin suggested to the Moscow Times that what he described as a ““mini-crisis”” would be resolved. Unfortunately, accordingly to reports of a television interview, President Putin yesterday apparently accused Britain of colonial thinking in pursuing the matter. It is to be hoped that relations will eventually normalise, provided that the Russian Government accept that the Litvinenko issue will not simply go away and that it will eventually have to be resolved one way or another. Another reason for concern in Anglo-Russian relations is the recent announcement by President Putin in mid-July that he would no longer be bound by the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty, which was signed in 1990. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised the matter last week during the Government’s statement. As an ex-territorial army infantry officer during the cold war, I once had a very close interest in Russian tanks, and in my present position I still do, albeit for slightly different reasons. The CFE treaty limits the number of heavy conventional weapons between the Atlantic ocean and the Ural mountains, and when it was signed it was generally regarded as a key development in ending the cold war and in Russia’s re-engagement with the West As I understand it, Russia has technically suspended the treaty rather than withdrawn from it wholesale, and a practical effect is that it will no longer permit inspections or exchange data on its troop deployments in line with the treaty’s provisions. That is a worrisome development, so will the Minister say what recent representations, if any, Her Majesty’s Government have made to the Russian Government on this issue and what response, if any, they have received? Similarly, will he give us at least a feel of what discussions he has had with our NATO partners and what their response has been? Despite those differences, it is worth restating that there are many areas where co-operation between Britain and Russia is desirable: trade, the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drugs, and crime, and the Middle East peace process. In addition to areas of mutual co-operation, there are areas where Russia could specifically benefit from British help. Russia needs British investment in its industries and for Britain to buy its energy, something that we are willing to do in principle, but without becoming over-reliant on Russian supplies. Several hon. Members touched on that briefly this morning. In return, Russia could usefully benefit from British investment and technical expertise to exploit increasingly hard-to-reach reserves of energy in hostile environments. It is in the nature of business that British companies thinking of investing in Russia will look for political stability and positive relations between our countries when making investment decisions and those points should not be lost on Russia, not least as it faces its own energy challenges, particularly in the decade ahead. Russia and the UK would both gain from normalisation of relations and mutual co-operation on the issues of the day. However Russia should be under no illusion that there is anything but a united political front in Britain that deplores the murder of one of its subjects, and is determined to seek the extradition of the main suspect to stand trial on British soil. Russia should not expect a full normalisation of relations until it plays by normal internationally accepted standards of behaviour. Similarly, Conservative Members are concerned about the recent Russian decision to suspend the CFE treaty, which we view as something of a retrograde step. The treaty has been an important part in normalising military relations since the end of the cold war, and we would like the Russian Government fully to rejoin that agreement as soon as possible. We hope that Russia will look for opportunities to work positively with the UK in a range of areas including trade, the fight against drugs and terrorism, and the development of new energy supplies, which could potentially benefit us all. We hope that the Russian Government will bear all those points in mind, but before we hear what they think about it, we are interested more immediately in what Her Majesty’s Government think about it.