---

European Affairs

I think that I will get on, as I know that hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, wish to take part in the debate. The immense subject of relations with Russia illustrates the same difficulty. I had hoped that the Foreign Secretary would say more about that, but he may address it tomorrow. The Opposition have rarely differed much with the Government in matters relating to Russia: we have stood together with them on matters such as the expulsion last year of four Russian diplomats, and we have shared their outrage at the murder of Alexander Litvinenko and the failure to bring Andrei Lugavoi to justice. We have certainly regretted with the Government Russia's rescinding of a number of international agreements on security in Europe, such as the conventional armed forces treaty. We all deplored Russia's actions in Georgia in August, while appreciating that the Georgian Government may also have made mistakes. Both the Government and Opposition have expressed support for democracy in Georgia and Ukraine and supported the ceasefire agreement sponsored by President Sarkozy, and so on. The Foreign Secretary made a speech in Kiev earlier this year in which he said that Russia must learn that"““there can be no going back on fundamental principles of territorial integrity, democratic governance and international law””" and that the west must"““raise the costs to Russia of disregarding its responsibilities””." We completely agreed with that speech, and at the same time we united with the Government in supporting trade and dialogue with Russia and in being open to better relations if they can be created in the future through what the right hon. Gentleman described as ““hard-headed engagement””. Therefore, we differ with the Government not over this country's strategy towards relations with Russia but over whether that strategy was consistently pursued last month. In our view, the European Council was right to uphold the ceasefire conditions at its meeting on 1 September, and to make it clear that the resumption of the suspended talks on a new EU-Russia partnership would depend on the complete implementation of the ceasefire agreement. However, the Council having taken those steps and made that clear, we consider it a mistake that it then resumed the partnerships talks anyway, even though it is clear that not all the ceasefire conditions have been met. In our view, that sends out, from the EU, a signal of weakness and of a lack of credibility where there should have been united strength. The message sent to Russia and the rest of the world on such matters is that the EU's bluff can be called. My message to the Foreign Secretary—and our only difference on this issue—is that when he does and says the right thing, which he very much did in August on Russia, he should keep doing and saying it, and not be so easily pushed off into an EU policy that now looks inconsistent and confused.