§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting he now adjourned. —[Mr. Heppell]
9.30 am§ Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)Although the attendance in the Chamber this morning may suggest that this is not an important subject, I would argue that this is a crucial debate about the direction that Russia is taking, and about the fitness of Russia to be part of the democratic community. Consequently, it has serious implications for developing relations between our country and Russia. I should perhaps make it clear that I am a member of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, and a member of its Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. I am the rapporteur on political prisoners, specifically in Azerbaijan, which is obviously out side the scope of the debate, but also in Europe.
For the past two years, members of the Parliamentary Assembly have been extremely concerned about what has been happening in President Putin's Russia. The core of attention until recently was events in Chechnya. The Assembly of the Council of Europe suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation because it was so appalled at the lack of action by the Russian authorities to deal with blatant and widespread human rights abuses in Chechnya. We are talking about clearly reported events, such as cases where Russian soldiers, or other Russian agents, burst into she cellars of houses where women and children—innocent people—were sheltering from civil war, and tossed in hand grenades and killed them. No action has been taken against those authorities.
I regret to say that the British Prime Minister entertained President Putin on an official visit to this country a week after the Parliamentary Assembly suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation. It is true that the Prime Minister remonstrated with President Putin on a somewhat famous occasion, only to be lectured by Mr. Putin on the situation in Chechnya. Our Prime Minister could have been more robust in retorting that it was the duty of Governments who signed up to the European convention on human rights, and had valid laws of their own, to uphold and enforce those obligations. That is what we were asking the Russian authorities to do.
Concerned as I remain about the situation in Chechnya and the lack of redress, the debate has moved into what I would call mainstream Russian life. I have received many reports of abuses of human rights by the authorities relating to a number of prisoners. I have also heard reports of conditions affecting Russian prisoners, and heard evidence of self-inflicted wounds, hunger strikes, prisoners setting fire to prisons, suicides and people dying in suspicious circumstances in Russian 422WH prisons. The state of the prisons and the way that prisoners are treated in Russia is open to serious question.
I want to spend most of my speech on the situation that affects the three Yukos executives arrested last year. It is my belief that, whatever they may be accused of, the way that they are being treated is symptomatic of a change of attitude in the legal process in Russia that is simply unacceptable. If left unchallenged, it will basically allow the Russian authorities to believe that, signatories as they may be to the European convention on human rights, no action will be taken against them, or even public criticism aimed at them, for breaches.
The first thing to record is that in July last year two Yukos executives, Platon Lebedev and Alexei Pichugin, were arrested and have been in custody since then. At the time of their arrest it was widely reported that that was a shot across the bows of the president of Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was well known for his activities in support of human rights organisations, opposition political parties, promoting a pluralist Russia, and trying to encourage more liberal academic institutions through his considerable personal fortune. He has given more than $100 million to various philanthropic funds in Europe.
Regardless of whether one thinks that Mr. Khodorkovsky is a good guy or a bad guy, what I have to say is still legitimate. I am happy to put on the record that having looked in some depth at Mr. Khodorkovsky's record, most people in the west would regard him as an example of how Russia could usefully develop, rather than the reverse. It is true that according to popular opinion in Russia there is either hostility or indifference to the fate of the so-called oligarchs. However, we should not regard that as a justification for not protesting. The sad fact is that Russia has no tradition of democracy, no established tradition of human rights or due process and, perhaps, a cynical population that does not expect it. Indeed, the population may believe that the authorities are entitled to use whatever means they think are necessary to pursue people who they believe are acting against their perception of the national interest.
In the long term, the implications of allowing Russia to proceed in this manner are profound—especially for the people of Russia. If the situation goes unchallenged, Russia could slide back into the bad old mechanisms of the Soviet Union and not move forward into pluralist democracy. Ultimately, that may damage confidence in economic developments in Russia and the willingness to invest. Companies that are looking for Russian partners will inevitably be concerned that if their Russian partner falls foul of the President or central authorities, a case could be fabricated against the western partner and the Russian company in a way that would deeply damage the economic and commercial interests of both. We know that BP has significant investments and partnership arrangements in Russia. Although it is on public record as saying that it is comfortable with that, it is generally known privately that it is much less sanguine about the prospects for future success in that area.
After Mr. Lebedev and Mr. Pichugin were arrested, Mr. Khodorkovsky made it clear that he did not intend to change his behaviour and wished to continue supporting what he would call democratic pluralism, and in particular would give support to three political 423WH parties: Yabloko, the Union of Rightist Forces and the Communist party. There is a certain irony in the fact that the Communist party is the only effective opposition to President Putin's parties in the Administration in the Russian Duma. When one considers that it is only 14 years since the collapse of communism, that is a rather ironic turn of events, because sadly, the more liberal democratic parties were effectively extinguished at the last election.
In passing it must be recorded that President Putin has systematically closed down critical or opposition media, including television stations and newspapers. The recent elections were severely criticised by many observers not only on evidence that there was perhaps corruption in the conduct of the vote, but much more importantly because there was a total lack of balance in the coverage before the election between the Government and opposition parties. I, for one, admit to feeling a shiver down my spine when, immediately after the election, the leader of the Liberal Democrats—which may be an eponymous party in relation to our own, but which shares absolutely no values with us; it is an extreme, flamboyant, nationalist party—announced that his party was 110 per cent. supportive of the President and would use its votes to give him the two-thirds majority needed to change the constitution in any way he thought fit. That gives a clear indication that democracy and pluralism in Russia are facing the end of their days only a short period after they were born. That is a tragedy for what many of us hoped would be a much brighter future for Russia.
The argument has been advanced that the so-called oligarchs exploited the post-communist situation and made huge amounts of money in corrupt ways. It is true that they made money; they were able to acquire a stake in significant, previously state-owned businesses, which subsequently increased in value, sometimes owing to the activities of the new management and sometimes because they were cheaply held. My contention is that that issue could be addressed without persecuting individuals, imprisoning them and abusing human rights.
In the context of Yukos, Mr. Khodorkovsky has made it clear that he is more than willing to have a dialogue and be constructive. Over the past few years, it has been generally acknowledged by objective observers outside Russia that Yukos was developing a model operation, which was transparent, open and the biggest taxpayer in Russia. Unlike in the United Kingdom, paying taxes in Russia is a club that many people have no intention of joining, but Yukos paid substantial taxes. Its accounts have been transparent, and it has been determined to demonstrate, in ways that would inspire confidence outside Russia, that it is operating according to high standards and is free from corruption.
Let us focus on what has happened to the individuals whom I have mentioned. The reality is that almost all the basic rights to which these people are entitled have been abused. Mr. Lebedev, who was one of Mr. Khodorkovsky's business partners, is in a poor condition in prison. He is losing his eyesight, and is having considerable difficulty in reading the papers associated with his case. At his last hearing when he asked the judge whether he could have a magnifying 424WH glass, the judge refused to provide him with one and accused him of delaying tactics for not processing what are extremely complicated papers.
It is important to consider the conditions in which these people find themselves. Mr. Lebedev is in poor health, is not coping with his imprisonment and has not been given rights—I shall come to the specific abuse of rights in a moment. Mr. Pichugin has lost a third of his body weight in prison. He is believed to have contracted and developed TB, but it has been difficult to get any sort of medical test. He has also been injected with psychotropic drugs against his will.
I stress that we are talking about Russia in 2004, not Soviet Russia under the communists. This is supposed to be a democratic Russia that is fully signed up to the European convention on human rights. It is not a coincidence, however, that the President's training before he reached that post was as a KGB agent. Over the past year or two, ex-KGB people have been put into key positions throughout Russia and they are known to be using their old mechanisms for enforcing their will.
The men are being held in an ex-KGB prison that has a fairly well established reputation for its previous role during the Soviet era. The essential view is that they have faced a catalogue of abuses. I have met Mr. Khodorkovsky's lawyers, and his lead lawyer is a Canadian citizen, Mr. Robert Amsterdam. He says that he is shocked and appalled by the way that his client is being treated and wit h the process that is being denied. He assures me that it bears close resemblance to what happened during the earlier days of the Soviet Union—not even to its latter, more relaxed, period.
The lead defence attorney acting for Mr. Lebedev and Mr. Khodorkovsky, Anton Drel, has been summoned for questioning by the procurator-general. That is a direct violation of article 8 of the law on rights and duties of lawyers. That is not international law, but Russian law that is being breached. It basically states that an attorney for the defence cannot be either subjected to questioning or summoned to give evidence related to an ongoing case.
On Friday 9 October, law enforcement officials searched offices connected with Yukos and affiliated companies, including the offices of the attorney, Anton Drel. Documents associated with Lebedev and Khodorkovsky's defence were confiscated in a clear violation of attorney -client privilege. It is believed that lawyer-client communications—between lawyers and Mr. Lebedev—are being intercepted at Lefortovo prison.
The men have been denied open court hearings, despite the criminal code giving them that right. They have also been denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. At first hand, I have heard how Mr. Amsterdam has found it difficult to brief, obtain information from or inform his client because hearings are often held in rooms where not even the defence attorneys, never mind anybody else, are allowed in. The defence lawyers say that they have been hampered in many other ways and that they have been unable to fulfil their functions.
Their clients have also been denied bail, despite the fact that the Russian criminal code is quite clear. The argument that has been used in Mr. Khodorkovsky's case, for example, is that in some way he or the others 425WH would leave the country or interfere with the judicial process—well, they might enable themselves to make an effective defence.
The argument in the case of Mr. Khodorkovsky is questionable. He has had many opportunities to leave Russia, and he has made it clear on every occasion that he has no intention of doing so. He has been out of the country and has returned on many occasions. He has one child at a boarding school in Switzerland, but otherwise all of his family live in Russia and his only home is there. He has made it clear that he has no intention of skipping bail and that he wishes to confront the charges against him and to have a chance to prove his innocence.
As I said earlier, Mr. Pichugin has been injected with psychotropic drugs. His wife has seen the needle marks. He has complained of that treatment, but no action has been taken. There have been numerous raids on the company and the attorney's offices, carried out without proper authority by armed gunmen fishing for anything that might help the court to progress the case.
By any standards, it is clear that the Russian authorities are determined to prosecute the case in any way that they think fit, without any regard for their own legal processes or for their obligations under the European convention on human rights, content in the knowledge that the vast majority of Russian people are not interested or concerned or are even supportive of the actions against these people. Having no real experience of a fair and democratic justice system, people are not particularly surprised that they do not have one now.
That is one of the reasons why this is an important debate. Citizens in free countries such as ours have to protest about the issue and to make it clear that this is not an acceptable way for any country to behave, certainly not one that wants to be, and regards itself as being, accepted into the democratic family of nations.
I do not wish to be too partisan. However, supporters of Mr. Khodorkovsky and of other political prisoners in Russia, and human rights organisations, are disappointed in the extreme that the United Kingdom Government have not taken a public stand to criticise such behaviour, and have not called on the Russian authorities to observe their own rules and those of the European convention on human rights. So I am not the only one to take that view.
The French Government have said that they regard the matter as entirely internal. I do not believe that we can accept that. Whether the charges against these people are legitimate is not the issue, although I have said that I am not convinced that the charges are genuine. The substantive point is that whatever these people are accused of, they should not be treated in this way; they should be entitled to a fair trial and a fair process. What we are getting is the old-style show trial, conducted without proper reference to the proper democratic processes. There have been clear attempts to intimidate others and to break the accused.
I have seen a copy of an open letter to Mr. Khodorkovsky from a former political prisoner of Soviet Russia, who believes that the current pattern of activities is effectively no different from that which existed in Soviet Russia, and that the people carrying out the abuses are the very same as those who did so under the previous regime. The letter tells Mr. 426WH Khodorkovsky that what he is doing is very brave but very foolish, because he will not succeed. If we do not support the rights of these people, their position will be extremely bleak.
I respectfully suggest that it is the duty of this Parliament and this Government to highlight our concerns and to make it clear to the Russian authorities that this sort of process is unacceptable. We should not interfere with the legal process in relation to the charges, but we should demand that the way in which any prosecutions are carried out should be in accordance with the law of Russia and the international law to which Russia has signed up.
I have received an up-to-date report on how the situation is progressing. The Basmanny court in Moscow decided four days ago to limit the time available to Platon Lebedev to read his case file. The same court refused him a magnifying glass to read his papers. He has to complete his review by the end of March, which gives him little time to prepare a defence. The other two men have been told that their cases have been fully investigated, but new episodes or charges continue to be added to the files. They have all been remanded without bail and no trial dates have been set.
The case has attracted the attention of many former dissidents under the old regime in Russia, including Yelena Bonner, the wife of Mr. Sakharov. She has sent letters to the human rights commissioner in Moscow and has published open letters expressing deep concern about the abuses and calling on the international community to fight for the rights of political prisoners in Russia. I have no doubt that the people to whom I am referring are political prisoners, but that does not ultimately affect the main thrust of my argument. Whatever kind of prisoners they are. they should not be treated in such a way.
I have witnessed the situation in Russia over the past few years with increasing concern, as have many of us. I appreciate the difficulty of turning a former communist totalitarian regime with no history of democracy into a modern pluralist democracy. I never expected Russia suddenly to transform into a relaxed and open democracy, but I hoped and believed that it would move progressively in that direction. The past 12 months have suggested that the opposite is happening; Russia is moving away from democracy towards a form of what one might call democratic totalitarianism.
I do not deny that President Putin was legitimately elected and will probably be re-elected by a substantial margin. Regardless of criticism from observers, the Duma elections probably reflect Russian popular opinion. I could argue that if the more democratic parties had a fairer platform on which to operate and access to freer press and broadcasting services, the balance in the Parliament would be different and there would not have been the effective extinction of liberal and rightist forces in the Duma. However, I do not believe that a full, fair and open platform would have enabled those parties to sweep to power.
I am not naive or out of touch with Russian public opinion, but we must realise that the vast majority of Russians have had no experience of a democratic society and have no recognition of what it is about. A regime, which they may not have loved, collapsed, leading to a period of chaos, which hurt many people. Many people 427WH suffered, lost work, lost income, were not paid, went hungry, or left the country. Of course, people might say that communism was not great but anarchy is worse.
Nevertheless, if Russia is to have a future and if its signing of the European convention on human rights, of which we are co-guarantors, is to mean anything, it must conduct itself in accordance with the principles of the convention. Through our dealings with Russia, whether they are business or political—Parliament to Parliament or Government to Government—we must make it clear that Russia must unconditionally conform with those basic standards if it is to be accepted into the democratic family of nations.
We need constructive relations with Russia. I understand that Russia is an important political player, and therefore I understand the sense of delicacy and trepidation with which Governments act to maintain relations with Russia. However, the events of the past year have created a slight counter-current because Russia's position on the actions in Iraq was significant. At the least, our Government, and especially the American Government, were anxious to avoid the application of a Russian veto—they wanted neutrality. I shall not press the point more than to say that there has been a slight compromise. Although I can understand that, I appeal to our Government to recognise that they have an obligation in their public and private negotiations with the Russian authorities to say, "We want to work with you, to see your economy thrive, and to develop alongside you, but if you are not prepared to operate within the proper standards of democratic pluralism, to uphold your own laws, and to observe the international treaties that you have signed, you will call into question our ability to continue relations at the sort of level that both of us would wish."
If we say nothing, we endorse Russia's behaviour. We did not do that when the Soviet Union was in existence. We did business with the Soviet Union and had to engage with it during the cold war, but we continually opposed human rights abuses and tried to stand up for certain people. and probably secured the freedom of some dissidents as a result. It would be a sorry state of affairs if we were not prepared to be equally robust in the new situation, in which there is a real aspiration towards building democratic institutions in countries such as Russia.
We have enlarged the European Union, and have accepted eight members from the former communist regime, although admittedly none of them freely associated with the Soviet Union. We have extended the Council of Europe to 45 members and engaged in a dialogue to try to raise standards.
I made a reference at the beginning of my remarks to my role in securing the release of political prisoners in Azerbaijan. We have confronted countries that are struggling towards democracy and we have pushed, cajoled and pressurised them to move in the right direction. It would be appalling if we took the view that we could push around Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Romania or Moldova but could not do so with Russia because it is too big and important, and that therefore we should allow Russia to get away with it. That would be a failure of our responsibilities towards the Russian people.
428WH It would also make it difficult for us to stand our ground with integrity in those other countries, because they would say, "You are only bullying us because we are small; you are forcing us to adopt difficult changes, but you are allowing Russia to get away with it." That argument was deployed vehemently in our debates in Strasbourg in relation to Chechnya, but has not yet surfaced with the same degree of passion in the context of abuse of political prisoners in what one might call the mainstream of Russian society.
If we do not make a stand now, and make it clear that what is going on in Russia is unacceptable, I am confident that that argument will surface and that the time will come when this Room will be a lot fuller of Members of Parliament wishing to express their concerns about the deteriorating situation in Russia. I strongly believe that we can express those concerns in a constructive, civilised but forceful way, and that it is our duty to do so as a democratic country, as co-guarantors of the European convention on human rights and as a friend of the Russian people.
We must not stand by and allow Russia to slide back into totalitarianism. simply on the grounds that that will provide stability and order, and that popular opinion is reasonably content. That is not good enough. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the British Government are willing to make it clear to the Russian authorities that they expect a much more robust and real application of both Russia's own legal processes and of those that are encapsulated in the international treaties that Russia has signed.
§ 10.4am
§ Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) not only on securing the debate, but on setting out comprehensively the immediate concerns about a number of high-profile political prisoners and on painting a broader canvas of the human rights situation in Russia. It is at that particular aspect that I wish to direct most of my remarks.
As my hon. Friend said, Russia—as we now call it again—has been through huge changes in recent years. Our views of the country have changed rapidly throughout that period. We all shared in the jubilation and exhilaration at the ending of the old communist arrangements and the Soviet Republic and the associated democratisation in countries in eastern Europe, which, happily, as my hon. Friend highlighted, will be joining the European Union in a few weeks' time, something which has all-party support in and outside the House.
As for international relations, there has properly been a broad welcome for Russia's economic liberalisation and willingness to participate in international organisations such as the United Nations much more constructively. Sadly while significant and welcome progress has been made, our attention has been drawn increasingly to developments within the country, especially the growing evidence of abuses of human rights. That was reflected in my hon. Friend's contribution. Last summer, we had a short debate about Chechnya before the visit of President Putin. Again, this debate is timely as the presidential elections take place in a few days' time.
429WH It is sad that in both instances our debates have focused on human rights, not on some of the other issues that I have already mentioned. We cannot escape the fact that there is a growing number of political prisoners in the country. A wide range of non-governmental organisations have documented more widespread human rights abuses such as detention, growing evidence of torture and ill treatment of prisoners, and significant restrictions on freedom of expression in the country. One of the growing, most alarming aspects concerns the thousands of children—one estimate puts the number as high as I7,000—who are held in prison in contravention of international conventions. Many thousands more are being held in pre-trial detention.
The situation in Chechnya was the subject of a debate a few months ago. It remains the largest scar on Russia's human rights record. The forced disappearances of thousands of people, extrajudicial and summary executions, arbitrary detention and torture, and ethnic discrimination have been happening on a grand scale. I accept that there are abuses on both sides, but the Russian Government cannot escape their responsibilities in such circumstances. It is more than an internal security problem. President Putin has said that it is part of the war on international terror. I fear that our Prime Minister has lent credence to that argument with his comments. Following our debate in Westminster Hall in July, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) put it to the Prime Minister that he should raise the issue of Chechnya during the state visit. All of us welcomed that he said that he would do so in robust terms. However, it appeared to me that he sought to justify some of the actions as part of the broader international war on terror.
Although I accept that there is an element of that, I hope that the Government have not bought that story wholesale, and will still put the case against Russian activity in Chechnya in the most robust way. The issue has not simply arisen in the past few years; it is almost 60 years since the problems in Chechnya began with mass deportations. We must not lose sight of that historical record, and must continue to draw attention to its unacceptability to this country and to the international community.
Russia must accept that it has huge international obligations to maintain and to develop human rights. It is a signatory not only to the European convention on human rights but to every significant United Nations human rights treaty, as well as the different conventions on economic, social and cultural rights, civil and political rights, the elimination of racial discrimination and discrimination against women, torture and children's rights. Sadly, there is significant and growing evidence that the Russian Government are in breach of each of those treaties.
It is symptomatic of a tendency, which was remarked upon by my hon. Friend, for the state to draw power into the centre and to restrict opposition. As has been mentioned, the parliamentary elections in December probably reflected the broad views of the Russian people. However, one set of observers described them as "free but not fair", and that should worry us all. A journalist into whom I humped the other day who is going to Moscow to cover the presidential elections was almost dismissive in describing them as "Putin's personal plebiscite". It certainly looks, in certain 430WH quarters, as if there is a complete lack of any serious opposition. The contenders at the last presidential elections have mostly left the field, and many of them have been silenced in the years since. Indeed, it has been suggested that the regions that they represent have been punished for their having the temerity to stand against Putin at the last elections.
We have seen the increasing use of presidential representatives in each of the regions and President Putin has been increasingly willing to exert his control. The most recent examples of that were the sacking of his entire Cabinet and the appointment of a new Prime Minister. Perhaps most alarmingly, we are seeing the reemergence of the security and intelligence services as real sources and forces of authority within the state. Furthermore, the recent clampdown on independent television and media gives us great cause for concern. I appreciate that President Putin has brought a degree of stability and significant economic progress, after the economic and political chaos of President Yeltsin's era. However, increasingly, we must ask: at what price has that been achieved?
If we welcome Russia more firmly into the international family of nations, we cannot do so without criticism. We have a strong relationship, but it cannot be less than a robust one. We must watch this week's presidential elections with some care. Assuming that we can predict the outcome with some certainty, we must make it clear to President Putin that his new term must also mean a new era. At the very least, we must see greater access for human rights and international monitoring organisations in Russia. We must not meekly tolerate the abuses of human rights that have been documented in the country. We must give every encouragement to reform and to democratisation in its broadest sense, rather than go along with backsliding into totalitarian rule. Our relationship with Russia means that we have an important role to play. We must not buckle. We must not avoid confronting Russia with the abuses that make it an increasingly worrying member of the international community.
§ Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con)I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing the debate. It is particularly timely as elections will take place in Russia on 14 March. Before I address some of the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised—human rights and political prisoners—I shall refer to the progress that Russia has undoubtedly made since the last presidential elections. I think that it was Karl Marx who said that political events arise out of economic circumstances. I am paraphrasing, but there is a certain amount of historical truth in that, and I want to deal with that aspect of what is going on in Russia, too.
Notable progress has been made in Russia, and there is no question that that can he attributed to the leadership of Vladimir Putin. He has had to take some tough decisions. Russia has progressed much further and in a shorter period than anybody could possibly have expected a few years ago. A decade ago, few could have foreseen Putin's groundbreaking state visit to Britain, the first by a Russian leader since the visit of Tsar Alexander II in 1874. Today, the Russian economy is doing substantially better than at any time since the 431WH mid-1980s. Following 11 September, international cooperation is at an unprecedented level; there are links with NATO and the EU. The exorbitant and destructive defence spending that was characteristic of Russia has been reined in. Educating Russia's young people is now a major domestic priority. President Putin has repeatedly spoken of his abhorrence of corruption and those who have benefited royally from it; I have heard him say so on a number of occasions.
There is great hope for Russia. It can be a success story, and that can be an example to other countries in the region that are wrestling with the difficult legacy of the old Soviet domination and the command economy and the culture of governance that flowed from that.
Russia has had five years of economic growth; there has been a 30 per cent. increase in GDP. For the first time since the mid-1920s, Russia is able to feed its people and livestock from its own supplies. It is a net exporter of grain, and it is the second biggest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia. It is not only the wealth of the state that has increased. Real household income increased by 13.5 per cent. in 2003, and real income is up by 50 per cent. in five years. Although there are huge disparities of wealth and income, those are remarkable achievements.
Overall, living standards have improved. The problem of the huge divide between rich and poor remains. There is a President who appears to be riding on a great wave of personal popularity, in part because of the economic background that I have just described. I believe that it is inevitable that a desire for greater civil and human rights, particularly in the younger generation, will arise out of that economic prosperity and growth.
Despite all the progress, there is considerable international concern about some of the activity within Russia's borders. That is what the hon. Members for Gordon and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) have addressed. As a friend of Russia, Britain has a duty to support the Russian Government in their attempts to address those concerns. Sometimes, that means understanding the unique and enormous challenges that the President faces in Russia. On occasion, it means taking a firm stance, and making clear the boundaries of international standards of behaviour.
In January, US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, visited Moscow. His approach was to deliver a message to the Russian Government— it was widely reported—that the west is vitally interested in the progress of democratic transition in Russia and everything that flows from that. Will the Minister tell the Chamber what steps the Foreign Secretary is taking to complement that approach, which has wisely been adopted by Secretary of State Powell?
Many media discussions on Russia have focused on the case of Boris Berezovsky and that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which has been referred to in particular by the hon. Member for Gordon. To many people, including the much-needed external investors, the sheer unpredictability of doing business in Russia, with its so-called mafia links and the fear that an industry might be targeted, makes it a risky place in which to invest. For that reason alone, there are concerns. One way to reduce 432WH that perceived risk might be to allow international organisations, non-governmental organisations and a free and independent media more freedom to scrutinise legal practice and human rights and to report their findings more openly. It would be beneficial to both democracy and the Russian economy if that were openly encouraged.
Open scrutiny of human rights and the legal process goes to the heart of the issue of political prisoners. Will the Minister express to the Russian Government that it is in Russia's interest to have a fully open and transparent legal and criminal justice system? It is true that in comparison with other areas of the world human rights abuses, as perceived and reported in Russia, receive widespread media coverage in Britain. The more Russia is seen as a big player in the world—which it undoubtedly is—the greater the scrutiny will become.
Reports of torture and ill treatment in police stations, and appalling conditions in pre-trial detention centres in Russia, are not isolated but widespread. Too often, those who are responsible appear to get away with their crimes. Victims have been denied their right to justice by local authorities, which ignore or condone complaints. The structures to investigate allegations and bring the perpetrators to justice are, it is reported, often absent. Corruption in many legions is apparently endemic. As I have said before, President Putin has talked about that.
President Putin has also talked about the need to establish a civil society and a sustainable democracy in which human rights and civil and political rights will be fully ensured. He is well aware of the problem. Last year, he described it as follows:
The institution of democracy has not developed properly in our country yet.… Our lows are correct but they either don't work or just disappear".That is an interesting insight as it applies to Chechnya, which has been referred to this morning. Will the Minister respond to that, and tell the Chamber what recent discussions the British and Russian Governments have had on the subject of Chechnya? Such systematic failure cannot be cured overnight, as is openly admitted, but steps could and should be taken.We believe that what is needed in all functioning democracies is proper accountability. That applies across the world in toto, both internally and internationally. There must be a recognition of the problem by the Russian Government. Only by encouraging transparency and openness can President Putin demonstrate to his critics that progress is being made and that Russia is committed to meeting the highest standards to which he has referred. That is a key test for Russia, as it looks to encourage further foreign investment and increased co-operation with the European Union. Perhaps the Minister could use today's debate to inform the Chamber what encouragement and assistance the British Government are giving to Russia in respect of both those issues.
In the past, as it has admitted, Russia has failed to seize fully its opportunities. One example of that was the Russian authorities' decision not to extend the mission of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Chechnya beyond December 2002. That did not exactly send the right signal to the international community. It cannot be in Russia's interests to refuse international scrutiny from an organisation that has an outstanding record in fighting for human rights and democracy in many parts of the world.
433WH There is much to cause concern about Chechnya, including the horror of terrorism arising from the situation there, which has struck people in Moscow. Terrorism anywhere in the world is to be condemned, and the slaughter of innocent people in Moscow has been truly horrific. In debate on 18 June, the Minister for Europe acknowledged the growing and serious threat of Islamic extremists in Chechnya. It would be interesting to hear about that front the Under-Secretary of State. Will he update the Chamber on what the Government's perceptions are of the threat posed by Chechen extremists in Russia today, and their influence in global terrorist networks?
Russia continues to meet important challenges. It faces a number of constraints, which have been well aired, in terms of what can feasibly be achieved in the short term, but there is certainly light at the end of the tunnel. I mentioned earlier the extraordinary progress that has been made in Russia in the past few years. The country has a President who has taken important and often difficult steps towards getting his country in place for the 21st century. As Leon Aron, a native Russian who wrote the definitive biography of Boris Yeltsin, recently noted,
Defense spending has plummeted from at least 30 percent of GDP to less than 5 per cent. Last September Putin proudly noted that for the first time in its history Russia was spending more on education than on defense".With the likely result of the elections being the reelection of President Putin, I am sure that he will reflect on the need to show that the Russian Government, in view of the continuing interest of the international community, will consider the issue of promoting human rights, the rule of law and democracy, not only internally but throughout the region that is so heavily reliant on Russia for economic prosperity and development.It seems extraordinary that in our lifetime we have seen the transformation of Russia. It has been an amazing success story, and Russia is now a significant player on the world stage. We have to build on that, in terms of our relationships. Our criticisms come from our desire for Russia to succeed. A great deal of progress has been made, but just as its economy is evolving and there is more prosperity, so emphasis on democracy, transparency and the criminal justice system will be brought further into the spotlight. It is for us all to encourage the Russian Government along that route in the best possible and most constructive way
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing this debate. It is right that we should discuss these issues, particularly in the run-up to the presidential election. Before the debate, we were discussing the number of times that Members raise such issues about Russia. There is not, perhaps, the parliamentary engagement on these issues that there might be, and Members of all parties should reflect on that.
I wish to place on record my clear view that Russia is important to the United Kingdom strategically, politically and economically, and that it is in our 434WH interests for Russia to be a stable, prosperous, democratic and influential member of the international community. It would be wrong to say that we want Russia to be isolated, and do not want to engage with it. In the 15 years since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has made enormous and welcome strides forward, and there have been vital democratic and economic reforms. Listening to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), I was struck by the fact that I am a child of the cold war and grew up with the old Soviet Union, but now, after a relatively short time, we face a very different Russia, albeit there are issues and concerns. I shall comment on some of those, but we should underline the degree of progress that has been made. We want that progress to continue.
Russia has, time and again, made public pledges to uphold and strengthen its commitments to human rights. It has done so through its membership of the Council of Europe and its commitments under a range of United Nations human rights conventions. Our important role as a friend and partner of Russia is to assist it in making good those commitments.
As the subject of this debate is political prisoners and human rights, I shall focus primarily on the Russian criminal justice and penal system. That was an issue on which the hon. Member for Gordon focused. However, I make it clear at the outset that we share the view of the US State Department, set out in its human rights report published last month, that there are no credible reports of political prisoners in Russia. That does not mean that there no concerns about prisoners, and I shall comment on that, but with regard to the accepted meaning of the term and the type of political prisoners who existed under Soviet rule, we see no evidence for or credible reports of such a situation in Russia today.
Nevertheless, a number of cases over the past few years have rightly attracted considerable attention in the media, in the House and from non-governmental organisations concerned with human rights. Most recently, we have heard about the case of Mr. Khodorkovsky, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Mr. Khodorkovsky, the former head of the Yukos oil company, is in pre-trial detention, facing a range of tax evasion and fraud charges. His detention is one aspect of a wide-ranging criminal investigation by the authorities into the activities of Yukos and its major shareholders. Platon Lebedev, his colleague and a major shareholder in Menatep—the Yukos holding company—has been in pre-trial detention since July 2003, also charged with tax evasion and fraud. Alexander Pichugin, a former Yukos security official, has also been in pre-trial detention since July 2003, charged with conspiracy to murder. Another major shareholder in Menatep, Shatanovsky, was found guilty of tax evasion in February 2004 and given a suspended sentence. Although he denied his guilt, he repaid a substantial amount of the tax claimed by the authorities.
As we have heard today, the lawyers of the three men still in custody have made serious claims about abuse of due process and ill treatment. Appeals are being submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Needless to say, we are concerned about those claims and are monitoring them carefully. With our European Union partners, we continue to stress to the Russian Government that the rule of law must be applied in a non-discriminatory and proportional way. Justice 435WH cannot be seen to be selective. It is vital that all necessary conditions to guarantee a fair trial are observed scrupulously, and that the conditions in which the men are held meet international standards.
Those high-profile cases raise more general points about the ongoing reform of the Russian criminal justice system. It is clear to us that President Putin and his Government understand the scale and importance of that task. That is why he has made judicial reform a key plank of his current presidency. It is worth acknowledging that there have been a number of significant reforms, and I shall mention some of the key aspects.
Significant measures have been taken to increase the independence and accountability of the judiciary. In parallel, Russia introduced a new criminal procedure code in 2002. That introduces a range of measures to curtail possible abuse of process in the criminal justice system. For example, a court order is now required for search and arrest warrants, which is welcome. Similarly, detainees must be brought before a court within 48 hours. Courts are no longer allowed to send cases back for further investigation when the prosecution has plainly failed to provide sufficient evidence. Significantly, as from January 2004, jury trials are being introduced in all but one of the Russian regions for the most serious crimes. In the long run, that will be seen as a significant step forward.
§ Malcolm BruceI put it on the record that in my conversation with Mr. Robert Amsterdam, he said that, on paper, the Russian criminal code is perhaps the best in the world, but in the case of his clients, virtually all the requirements that have been mentioned are being breached almost daily. That is the real concern. It was reported in the days of the Soviet Union that Russia had a model constitution—it was just not applied.
§ Mr. RammellWith extraordinary foresight, the hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point.
The will to reform the legacy of the Soviet criminal justice system undoubtedly exists. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the key is implementation. There are some initial encouraging signs; in the areas I have already referred to, the number of people held in pre-trial detention has fallen; jury trials are producing acquittal rates in line with those in the United States and the United Kingdom, and there are significant signs that the judiciary is increasingly willing and able to assert its independence. It is particularly welcome that the moratorium on the death penalty remains in place, with a clear commitment by President Putin that it will not be reinstituted.
However, many implementation problems remain. In some regions, courts lack the necessary technical knowledge, training or resources to apply the legislation correctly. Corruption remains a serious problem, regional judiciaries remain dependent on local administration resources and of significant concern are the ongoing consistent reports, documented by human rights organisations, of torture and severe ill treatment that some detainees experience at the hands of Russian law-enforcement agencies.
436WH We have therefore been working with the Russian Government and with non-governmental organisations to support the reforms that are already in place. For example, the Department for International Development funded a programme worth £800,000 to train judges and court staff and is funding a major programme on restorative justice. In addition, the Foreign Office is funding several programmes to combat torture and we are supporting the work of Nizhny Novgorod with regard to the Committee against Torture, an NGO that assists victims of torture and ill treatment to seek redress from the authorities. The project has led to the successful prosecution of a number of law-enforcement officials, which is a welcome and positive step.
Prison reform is another significant area of cooperation. Conditions in prison, especially in pre-trial detention centres, remain extremely poor by western standards. Overcrowding is a significant problem; cells are often badly ventilated and the prisoners may have a poor diet and get little exercise, which contribute to sanitation and health problems. According to Russia's Ministry of Justice, about 405,000 prisoners—almost half the prison population—have health problems, with desperately high rates of TB and HIV. However, the commitment and drive of the Ministry of Justice to improve prison conditions is clear. The prison population has fallen by a quarter in the past four years as amnesties take effeet, and prison sentencing is increasingly humanised.
We are funding further work to introduce non-custodial sentences on the lines of community service for minor offences and last week, Mr. Alexander Yelizarov, the acting Deputy Minister of Justice, accompanied by an eight-member team, visited the UK at our invitation. They came to learn more about the organisation and operation of the probation service, community service and the involvement of human rights NGOs. It was a welcome initiative, which shows how we are working effectively with Russia to tackle these issues.
Hon. Members have mentioned Chechnya, which presents particular concerns about human rights and the rule of law. We recognise the serious threat posed by terrorism in Chechnya, and in the past year there have been a series of devastating suicide attacks in the north Caucasus and in Moscow, the most recent being the attack on the Moscow metro on 6 February. These attacks have killed hundreds of innocent people. We should not have to say so, but we utterly condemn these monstrous acts of violence against innocent civilians.
We want Russia to succeed in restoring genuine stability. However, no attempt to bring peace to the Republic can succeed without greater efforts to address the continuing credible reports of human rights violations by federal and local security forces and the climate of impunity in which they operate. There continue to be credible reports of significant numbers of arbitrary arrests, detentions and disappearances in the Republic and there are consistent allegations of the torture of detainees.
As the Minister responsible for Russia, I have made my concerns about the situation in Chechnya clear to the Russian authorities, as have my colleagues. I made a statement last October in the wake of the Chechen presidential election in which I expressed concerns 437WH about the conduct of that election and called for human rights to be upheld, for the promotion of a genuinely open political process and for reconciliation.
We have long pressed the Russians to pursue a political rather than a military solution in Chechnya; we welcomed the political process that prompted the elections, but so far there has been a disappointing lack of progress. There were UK-supported statements by the European Union before and after those elections that expressed similar concerns about the election conditions and human rights, and I have raised the Chechen elections and human rights abuses directly with the Russian ambassador in the UK. When I visit Moscow later this month, I will express those concerns again.
I will now address some of the specific points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Gordon gave a broad overview while at the same time highlighting some of his particular concerns. His comments contained an implication that he.was critical of the fact that the state visit took place and that President Putin was received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. With a country such as Russia, it is important that we engage and discuss things, and the state visit was an opportunity for us to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about the development of pluralist democracy in Russia. That is in a significantly better state now than it was under Soviet rule; there have been vital democratic reforms in Russia, and there are now more political parties. I understand the points that have been made about election results, but they broadly reflect the will of the people. However, we have concerns about some of the negative developments in the country's democratisation; observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe were critical of aspects of the conduct of the December Russian parliamentary elections. We hope and urge that they will be addressed in the forthcoming presidential elections. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important concerns, and we need to consider them seriously.
I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). First, I must say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not justify the repression of human rights by reference to the war on terror. We need to have a grown-up debate about that. Every country that is involved in that war must strike a balance between introducing proportionate security measures to protect citizens from terrorism and upholding civil liberties and human rights. That is a challenge. Everyone needs to be constantly vigilant about the proportionality of the actions that are taken, whether they are necessary and how they impact on civil liberties and human rights. It is not an easy situation to grapple with. There are not necessarily any automatic right and wrong answers.
§ Mr. MooreI do not necessarily disagree with anything that the Minister has said. Does he think that, on balance, the Russian Government are getting it right in Chechnya?
§ Mr. RammellI have said what I have said about Chechnya. Russia and the Chechen Republic face a 438WH serious threat from terrorism. We want Russia to be able to restore stability, but it must also respect human rights and search for a political rather than a military solution. That is what I have tried to argue.
I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk. It shows how times, ideologies and politics have changed when a Conservative Member prays in aid Karl Marx in support of one of his arguments. However, I agree with a number of the hon. Gentleman's points. I agree with his remarks about the significant economic progress in Russia, and about the welcome fact that defence spending has significantly reduced. He also made important comments about President Putin's commitment against, and abhorrence of, corruption. I strongly agree that, as economic progress and prosperity develop in Russia, a thirst, commitment and desire will develop, particularly among the younger population, for civil liberties and human rights.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about comments made by Colin Powell during a recent visit to Russia. I endorse Colin Powell's approach of stressing the importance of partnership with Russia while expressing our concerns. That is the approach that we are trying to take and I shall adopt that when I visit Moscow later this month.
In conclusion, I shall summarise our developing view of the relationship with Russia. Russia is undoubtedly a key partner for the UK. We want and need it to be stable, prosperous and an important member of the international community. We welcome progress made on reform in recent years, and are prepared to continue our support for that process. However, we believe that democracy, human rights protection and open societies are prerequisites for long-term stability and prosperity. I genuinely believe that it is in both Russia's and our interests to promote those values.
Russia is incomparably freer than it was in Soviet days, and reform has acquired momentum. However, it is important that the momentum is not lost and certainly that it does not go into reverse. As supporters of Russia's transition to a new political and economic model, and as friends, we cannot hide our concerns, which we recently expressed in our annual human rights report. I have outlined some of our concerns about Chechnya. Like our partners and many human rights non-governmental organisations, we are concerned at reports of continued human rights violations by federal and local security forces. No political solution can be made to stick without greater efforts to address those problems.
Similarly, we believe that free media and a pluralistic political process are fundamental to a free society. Like others, we are concerned about recent negative trends in those areas. Internally, it is in Russia's interests for policy choices to reflect wide discussion of the options and input from many sources. Externally, Russia's partnership with the west needs a basis in shared values to be durable. Those points are important and fit with the approach to which I have referred.
I hope that the debate has provided an opportunity to air those issues and to give a clear picture of the range of actions that we are taking to support the promotion of human rights in Russia. Continuing problems must be addressed, and we intend to continue working with Russia on those matters, combining constructive 439WH engagement and, if necessary, criticism, with assistance. By doing that and by capitalising on the will of the Russian Government and the substantial steps that they have taken, we hope to push ahead with the process of reform.
In any situation of developing reform, one cannot stand still; one either goes forwards or backwards. We are determined to engage with Russia to take the process of reform forward and I will take up those discussions when I visit Moscow at the end of the month. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon on securing the debate, and I hope that on the next occasion a few more hon. Members will participate.
§ Sitting suspended