Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point. I accept that there are people in my constituency, as there will be in others, who fervently wish to overturn the result and to back remain. However, most people I speak to, when asked, feel that revoking would be a step too far. Most of them say, “I just want it over and done with. I want a deal.” I believe that this Government have tried to deliver exactly that. The last Prime Minister tried to deliver exactly that. She, like my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), made it clear that she was a remainer, but like me she vowed to respect democracy. The fact that I am mismatched with my seat might be something that political opponents wish to capitalise on, but the fundamental question we need to ask ourselves is whether we value political self-interest more than the trust, the pledge and the contract that we all made when that referendum was called.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Mrs Main]

On the point about honouring contracts, I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[Martin Whitfield]

Honouring contracts: an excellent input. I should like to draw the hon. Lady slightly back towards the Bill that is before us today, which she no doubt fully supports—quite rightly, in her own mind. Does she agree that the accompanying notes to the Bill confirm that it deals with the franchise for the election and the date of the election, as discussed? The notes state:

“The Parliament of the United Kingdom and parliamentary elections, including the franchise and disqualifications for membership of that Parliament, are an excepted matter under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”

I ask this specifically with regard to the importance of the Bill, which is addressing a general election.

[Mrs Main]

Yes, we are discussing a Bill about having a general election. My point is that we need a general election because we have moved so far away from the original concept of the referendum, which was a choice between in and out, not a party political choice. Now, we are in a sclerotic position. We cannot move forward in here, and the only obvious answer is to ask the public to decide.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

The people who are doing it and who perhaps will do it know who they are; I will not name them.

The only way we are going to end this rancorous, divisive politics is by being realistic. If there is a general election and a party gets a big majority—35% or 40% of the vote—that will still leave a majority in this country extremely unhappy with the outcome. The referendum, in my view, was misguided. It was an advisory referendum, but former Prime Minister David Cameron nevertheless said that it would be binding. He then made his reckless gamble and ran away, leaving his successors to clear up the mess. That referendum got us into the mess. The only way we will get closure in this country is by putting the withdrawal agreement to a confirmatory vote by the people and legislating for the referendum to be legally binding, and unambiguously so.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Is it not somewhat ironic that we are now being offered the third general election since the referendum, with no sight of a confirmatory referendum?

[Mike Gapes]

Absolutely.

There is a dire need for us to think about the long-term consequences. If 16 and 17-year-olds are not allowed to vote, that generation will be extremely unhappy for many years to come. We also need to look at the role of social media. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has highlighted the problems with social media’s involvement in election campaigning. If there is an election in a few weeks’ time, it will not be properly regulated and will be open to abuse.

Preparations for Leaving the EU

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

As one former Member of this House said to a foreign potentate, I admire my hon. Friend’s courage, his strength and his indefatigability in being able to insert HS2 into every question, and he knows my views on that matter.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

We spoke in questions recently about pallets. I raise the issue again today because on page 113 of the recently published report the Government say that there must be compliance with ISPM 15—international standards for phytosanitary measure No. 15—to export into Europe, but on page 115 they suggest that compliance only “may” be needed. To help those trying to export on pallets that will be accepted, which is it?

[Michael Gove]

It would be prudent to ensure that pallets are compliant, but we also point out that individual firms should contact the supplier or the Timber Packaging and Pallet Confederation—TIMCON—if they need more advice.

Prime Minister's Update

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are going to go for a deal, and we are going to come out on 31 October.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

To apply the mantra of this Government with universal credit to “test and learn”, if we look at the Supreme Court judgment, now with 20/20 hindsight, what would the Prime Minister do differently?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it would be fair to say that the Supreme Court is a relatively novel institution and this is a novel and groundbreaking judgment, even by the admission of the plaintiffs. We will study its implications with great care, and I think the House might like to reflect deeply on it, because I do think the judgment is of great constitutional interest and importance.

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The first thing to stress yet again is that it is a reasonable worst-case scenario and we have taken steps to mitigate it. In terms of the fair and equitable distribution of medicines across the UK, the system we have, and one I am proud to uphold, is the NHS.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I rise again to mention heat-treated pallets. Twenty-two days ago I asked a question on those, and the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that

“we have been working with the industry in order to ensure that we can mitigate the consequences of that.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 61.]

Since nothing can be exported from the United Kingdom into the EU if it is not on a heat-treated pallet, can he give me one example of the mitigation he has discussed in the last 22 days?

[Michael Gove]

Yes: more pallets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think the position is pretty clear, to be honest. Overall responsibility lies with the most senior Minister. I do not think that the Minister for the Cabinet Office would disavow that proposition for a moment. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was offering greater specificity, but the overall position is, I think, blindingly obvious.

[Martin Whitfield]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point also relates to the specific answer to the question I raised. I asked for an example of the mitigation and received the answer, “Yes I can.” Are we going to end up in the duplicitous situation where we phrase questions to have closed answers from Ministers, or is this supposed to be the opportunity for the Government to explain their position?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think I can arbitrate between the hon. Gentleman in his question and the Minister in his reply. The hon. Gentleman has put his concern on the record. He is a most perspicacious fellow and I feel sure that he will have recourse to the Table Office if he wishes to table further questions. Knowing the appetite of the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) for responding to inquiries, I am sure he will be getting up even earlier in the morning and going to bed even later at night specifically to attend to the inquiries of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield). The nodding of the head of the Minister on the Treasury Bench is testament to his acceptance of the point I have just made.

Prorogation of Parliament

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman has argued passionately in this place alongside me against a second referendum. I agree with everything he said, including about the referendum result being undermined.

I mentioned #StopTheCoup, and how bad a coup the Prorogation of Parliament would be. Instead, parliamentary games are being played by those on the other side of the argument. Parliament took control, and took parliamentary time away from the Government to pass the Benn Bill, which passed due to an amendment that was granted by the Speaker, who was frankly making it up as he went along. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has told me that even he did not expect the amendment to be made that allowed him to lay the path for Parliament to take the business away from the Government.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

On the question of a referendum, would the hon. Gentleman have a similar concern about a confirmatory referendum? As was the case with the Good Friday agreement, people would be empowered to show their acquiescence with a result that could become law. Hon. Members in this place who seek to disagree with that result are 650 votes, 350 votes, or one vote among the entire electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a really important debate, not least because 1.7 million people signed the petition. We have had demonstrations up and down the country, including in Leeds both this and last Saturday. The previous Saturday saw the largest demonstration in Leeds since the protests against the Iraq war, with 5,000 people turning out to hear some of the city’s and the region’s MPs, who are all from the Labour party.

Those demonstrations happened because people think that we need to be in Parliament to scrutinise the Executive at this crucial time, rather than spending five weeks in our constituencies and at party conference. Nor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, should the Prime Minister be electioneering using public money in that time, before general election spending rules apply.

It is vital that we are here because the country is in no way prepared for crashing out of the EU on 31 October as the Prime Minister seems intent on doing. Today, I read in The Times that our EU negotiating team is composed of just four people. How will four people negotiate a new withdrawal agreement with the European Union in the time that we have left before the European Council? That does not seem credible and does not stand up to scrutiny. That is why Parliament is being prorogued: so that scrutiny does not exist.

What else do we need in that period? A number of Bills that have started to go through the House have not completed the process, and they need to before we reach any watershed moment with the European Union. If they have not been completed, it will be absolutely chaotic—we will live in a chaotic country in which international law has not been properly legislated for; not enacted by our legislature.

The Trade Bill, for example, has not been finished. Why not, because it should have? We were on track to pass the Trade Bill in May—I do not mind if the Minister corrects me on that, but I think we should have completed the Bill then. We have not done so because of the attempts—which I would have supported—to insert a customs union into the provisions of the Trade Bill, and the Government, under both this Prime Minister and the previous one, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), did not want a customs union. Progress on the Bill was therefore slowed down, so we will not complete it in time for 31 October.

An immigration Bill would have provided some surety for EU citizens in this country—though perhaps not, depending on what happened with it—and regulated immigration post Brexit. What now happens to those EU citizens if the Prime Minister does not negotiate a withdrawal agreement and we leave with no deal on 31 October? I hope that the Minister has a good answer, because 3 million people in this country are interested to know what their status will be without the completion of such an immigration Bill. They do not believe the promises that have come from Ministers and the Executive.

What about the Fisheries Bill? Central to the leave campaign in 2016 was that the UK would take back control of fisheries and fishing rights, but how will that be possible without a Fisheries Bill? Without that legislation, will not other countries with which we share our territorial waters contest us in international courts? What a laughing stock we will be if we leave on 31 October without the legislation. The Agriculture Bill, too, is meant to frame what we will have post the common agricultural policy.

I am sure the Minister will say, “Oh, but these Bills will be in the Queen’s Speech”—obviously, he cannot give us a decisive answer on what will and will not be in the Queen’s Speech, but he will try to reassure us. However, I want to know how we will legislate for all those Bills by 31 October.

[Martin Whitfield]

Is my hon. Friend aware—I am certainly not—whether any carry-over motions have been tabled to save those Bills? That would avoid the necessity of them having to appear in the Queen’s Speech and mean that we could get back to them in the ridiculously short time that we will have left.

[Alex Sobel]

We only have a few hours before the House is prorogued. I am sure that colleagues of the Minister are busily preparing to ensure that we do not have to bring those Bills back in the Queen’s Speech, but one Bill we will without doubt need to be in it is an environment Bill. We were expecting an environment Bill to be introduced; we were expecting to be through First and Second Reading and in Committee—I wanted to be on the Committee, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who is sitting next to me—but we have no environment Bill. I would like to know what regulations will exist, and how we will enforce them from 1 November, if the Prime Minister completes the task that he has set for himself.

In Leeds, we are due to have a clean-air zone, because our air quality is among the worst in this country. Three times the Government have been taken to court by ClientEarth and lost, on the basis of EU regulations forming part of UK law to enshrine, embed and widen air quality through a number of local authorities in the UK. The Government have failed to deliver to Leeds what it needs—a charging system, and equipment for such vehicles—so we in Leeds will be in breach of EU regulations on air quality for longer than we expected.

Who will provide the environmental protection that we need? I asked that question of the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, but until a few hours ago the Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She said that in a no-deal Brexit scenario, the new agency would not be formed until the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2021, and that people would have to take environmental action retrospectively. That means that we will have no environmental protection in this country from 31 October until that date. I have an issue with effluent discharge into the River Wharfe, and I hope for some enforcement action on it. Will I be disappointed? Will people have to swim in effluent for two more years because there is no regulation? I would like to know.

The issues are not small and minor; they are huge, and Parliament should be here, sitting to debate those Bills, scrutinising them in Committee, and getting them through so that on 31 October we are not in a situation in which the people of this country have a far worse quality of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). This is an interesting debate, founded on petitions launched by people who were desperate to indicate their view to this House and this Government.

I represent East Lothian, where 3,867 constituents signed the petition not to prorogue Parliament, and 86 constituents signed the petition to prorogue Parliament. That made me think about what Prorogation is really about. It dates back to when this House was cleaned to make it ready for the arrival of His or Her Majesty—that was the reason we all had to get out. The effect is much greater at a constitutional level—we heard about the Bills that will be lost, but let me talk about one small problem that comes to mind: I will not be able to lodge any questions on my constituents’ behalf when we are prorogued.

I think of an EU citizen who successfully registered online and received a letter containing a number. The letter confirms that it is not proof of her status; the only way to gain proof of status is to log on, send a code by mobile phone, get an access code and then successfully prove it. She intends to leave this country on 1 November for a holiday, but she is worried that she will not get back in. When she arrives back with her German passport, it will not be read correctly because the data will not have been transmitted. She is genuinely worried about what she is supposed to do when she tries to get access to her data, or when Border Force try to get access, as in some trials nothing has happened. I pose that question, unfairly, in the hope of an answer, because once we are prorogued later tonight, I will not be able to lodge a question. I will not be able to find out what my constituent is supposed to do.

That brings me to the length of Prorogation. We have heard that there were Ministers who disagreed with Prorogation and those who agreed with it. The fact remains that the Government have said in their many charts that, taking out conference recess, the number of days that we are being prorogued is not much greater than in the past. That is not true; it is much longer. The Government did not present the motion for conference recess and I genuinely believe that they had no intention of doing so because they are using that period to hide from being questioned. That is why they want us to go away—so they do not have to answer questions about data, medicines, transport, EU citizens, the missing Bills, the state of the environment and the state of the negotiations.

I have heard, “We have to keep this private. We can’t take no deal off the table. We have to keep our hand secret.” It is strange that the European Union seems to have taken entirely the opposite view. Right from the beginning of the negotiation, it set out the evidence and its asks; it debated them and it put all that in the public realm. We are unable to do that because, we are told, “that is not how you negotiate.” With the greatest of respect, I do not think the way we intend to negotiate—by holding our cards close to our chests and telling nobody anything, with four people left to do the negotiation—is respecting the United Kingdom.

The Government are attacking an element of our constitution. Prorogation is a relatively small backwater of our constitution. To use it to stop Parliament, so the Government do not have to answer questions posed by representatives of constituents around the United Kingdom, is an extremely dangerous precedent to make. With all due respect, if we were sitting on the other side and we tried to defend sending Members of Parliament away for five weeks so that something could happen, those opposite would not be silent.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and for speaking to the petitions that are before the House, which more than 1.7 million people have signed.

It has been quite an interesting debate and I have enjoyed sitting here listening to all of it. I have heard many passionate speeches with statements about not wanting to silence voters, about there being no mandate and no majority, about the Government not having a mandate, and about voters being silenced. If Members have those concerns, there is an opportunity to do something about it later this evening—have a general election and ask the country and electorate to make the decision about who they want to govern the country. It is somewhat telling that it is the Opposition who are likely to block that, although I hope, after some of the speeches we have heard today, that Opposition Members will get into the Aye Lobby this evening to vote for a general election. I hope they will vote for their constituents to have the loudest say of all—their vote in a general election.

[Martin Whitfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Foster]

Briefly, and then I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s other question.

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for the Minister’s indication that he is seeking debate. On the off-chance of tonight’s vote being unsuccessful, would he consider revoking the Prorogation motion so that we could have the debate here?

[Kevin Foster]

No. The reasons for the Prorogation have been set out. To the arguments of those who have been shouting “Stop the coup!” and “Defend democracy!” but then do not want to have a general election, it must be said that I cannot think of any example of a coup in history where a free and fair general election was offered immediately afterward. That argument is absolute nonsense.

Coming on to the more serious question that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) asked, he decided to raise a bit of a scare story about what would happen for an EU citizen coming to our border on 1 November. Luckily, he can visit the Government website; it is being promoted now and he can have a good read of it afterward. There is a section on crossing the border after Brexit and another section on EU citizens moving to the UK after Brexit, which would have answered his question.

However, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, as people come across the border on 1 November, which was the example he gave, nothing will change. They will still be able to use e-gates if they are travelling on a biometric passport, and will not face routine intentions testing. The website also goes on to say that those coming here between 31 October this year and 31 December next year will be able to move to the UK and live, study, work and access benefits and services as they do now. Bluntly, a simple Google search would have revealed all that interesting information, and I certainly encourage people who have queries to look on that website.

It has been pointed out in the debate that these petitions are clearly distinct from one another in what they ask of the Government. The first, from March 2019, calls on the Government to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament. The second, launched last month, calls on the Government not to prorogue or dissolve Parliament unless and until the Government either revoke article 50 or seek a further extension. Like so much in Brexit, that makes it a debate where we cannot please everyone. In responding to these petitions, I will begin by setting out the process for proroguing Parliament, before turning to the specifics of the points made in the petitions.

Leaving the EU: Preparations

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Those who work in the chemicals industry are absolutely vital to the health of our economy. Hitherto, the regulation of chemicals within the European Union has been governed by the operation of the REACH directive. We are replicating that in UK law and we have had extensive discussions and are putting in place steps to ensure that the chemicals industry can continue to manufacture and export as before. It is one of those industries whose business model, as we leave the European Union, necessarily requires Government support to ensure its continued health.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Great mention has been made of the freight industry and the importance of guaranteeing the effective flow of goods across the border. Can the Secretary of State explain what has been done since February with regard to the ISPM—international standard for phytosanitary measures—on wood pallets? Two thirds of the pallets in this country do not comply with European Union requirements.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the nature of wood pallets, and we have been working with the industry to ensure that we can mitigate the consequences.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

That sort of politicking is completely unworthy of this serious debate. The Home Office, the UK Government and, with respect, the Scottish Government take this issue seriously. We are going to have a summit in early course to discuss all the issues around this, and I sincerely hope, because I have had constituents die as well, that we can move forward.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the devolution of further powers to Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I have regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has been unwavering in her passionate support for our Union. We have regularly discussed the UK Government’s continued commitment to the devolution settlement and to a strong Scotland within a strong United Kingdom.

[Martin Whitfield]

If the Secretary of State is in his place later, what will he do to keep Scotland in its place in the UK?

[David Mundell]

I will continue to do as I have done for the past four and a bit years, and that is relentlessly to make the positive case for the benefit of Scotland being in the United Kingdom and to the United Kingdom of having Scotland in it.

20 Years of Devolution

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and, indeed, the many contributions in this debate. I compliment the Chairs of both Committees for securing it.

Devolution, in its modern context, started with the Tony Blair Government’s confirmation of their first act in bringing together the referendum and the creation in 1999 of the Scottish Parliament. It is worth remembering that, in that first period, between 1999 and 2007, under Donald Dewar, Henry McLeish, and, of course, Jack McConnell, we saw the introduction of the smoking ban and of proportional representation in local elections. Schools were built, teachers were recruited, and there were smaller class sizes. Nursery places were secured for every three and four-year-old. Free personal care was brought in. Radical land reforms were introduced, which ensured that we conserved and enhanced our national parks and wild camping.

Crucially, devolution has ensured that lawmaking reflects the traditions of Scotland’s distinct and separate legal system. We required a Parliament because the cultural norms within both our legal and education system differ from those in England and Wales. Pre-devolution, most laws—bar a handful each year that were Scotland-orientated—were created here in Westminster and applicable to Scotland but fashioned in the framework and legal spirit of England and Wales.

I am extremely fortunate that one of my predecessors was John P. Mackintosh, the former MP for Berwick and East Lothian. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), I feel that J.P. Mackintosh is the true father of devolution in Scotland. From the outset, he recognised the imperative to form institutions that met Scotland’s demands. Mackintosh was one of the finest politicians never to hold public office, but his writings and ideas were arguably far more transformative than those of many of his peers who served in Government.

Mackintosh’s central argument was that devolution is about empowerment, not the glorification of a nation state. In the 1970s, he spoke of a settlement that was remarkably similar to the one forged through the convention in 1999 and that was receptive to citizens’ concerns and empowered Scottish communities. When making the case for a devolved Parliament, Mackintosh spoke of holding a “dual identity”—that of being Scottish and British. I stand here today proud to represent the seat of East Lothian in a UK Parliament, as a member of the European Union, embodying that tradition. I can argue without contradiction that I believe in a union of nations working together and staying together, whether that be the UK or the European Union. Neither the Conservatives nor the nationalists who sit in this place can make that commitment.

Recognising multifaceted identities has never been more important. We live in divisive times, with the unhealthy prospect of nationalist and nativist movements strangling UK and global politics. In that context, devolution is still crucial to the UK’s political landscape. We face international policy challenges such as climate change, surging global inequality and a changing face of work that will undoubtably impact on jobs. Never before have we required more the forces of interdependence, collective action and solidarity among the nations of the UK.

The devolution settlement keeps the constitutional bond intact. As Gordon Brown said in 2016:

“If we are to meet and master the global challenges ahead, we need to get the balance right between the autonomy people desire and the co-operation we need… we should help the nations and regions realise it and give them the power to do so. The alternative is a Britain that looks in on itself without the means to bridge its divisions and to bring people together.”

Devolution was the greatest achievement of the last Labour Government. It is forged on confirming the identity of individuals, not as a step to independence, but so that a child born in my constituency can see themselves as being Lothian, Scottish, British and European. Long may that continue.

G20 and Leadership of EU Institutions

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I wish the hon. Lady’s son Alexander a very happy birthday today.

I am sure we are all concerned about the deeply shocking images that we have seen from the US-Mexico border. Obviously, countries are responsible for their own border policy, but we all, I think, have the responsibility of ensuring that we address migration issues humanely. Concerns about what has happened on that border will continue to be raised.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), the Prime Minister will be aware that during the G20 the Russian Federation returned to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. With respect, there are questions about the Government’s approach to its return, but they are perhaps for another time. Given Crimea, given Georgia, given Moldova, given Chechnya, given MH17, given, of course, the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, and given the opportunity that the Prime Minister had to meet President Putin, how does she feel the future of our relationship with the Russian Federation will go now?

[The Prime Minister]

The point was made, which I reiterated in my statement, that I have been consistently clear: we have no argument with the Russian people. It is possible for us to have a different relationship with Russia, but for that to take place Russia has to change its behaviour and to follow a different path. We will not be able to normalise our relations until it does.