Budget Resolutions

Debate between Peter Grant and Andrew Bowie

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

During the previous time that there was a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament, that majority Government did in fact open their door to discussions with the other parties, and the hon. Gentleman’s party was quite happy to take advantage of that. He may remember, in fact, that it was an initial suggestion from his party that led to the Scottish Government introducing and maintaining to this day a record of 1,000 additional police officers compared with the maximum number that ever existed in Scotland under the previous Lib Dem-Labour coalition.

This will be seen as the year the Tories finally ditched any pretext that Budget day has anything to do with the public finances, helping the economic recovery or sustainable growth. Budget day has become purely and simply a propaganda exercise for the Government, and particularly for the Chancellor. That is what the days and days of utterly inexcusable leaks were about—leaks that until 10 years ago would have meant automatic dismissal or resignation for the Chancellor. The Chancellor seems to measure its success not by how effectively it closes the gap between rich and poor, because it does not, or by whether it delivers on any of his party’s manifesto promises—that is on the off chance that anybody can find any that havenae been broken—but on how many favourable headlines he gets in the right-wing press. It is almost as if the Chancellor has worked out how important the right-wing press is going to be in choosing the next Tory leader in a year or two’s time when the present incumbent gets fed up with being Prime Minister and goes off to do something different.

This Government have a track record of spending millions of pounds on pushing soundbite slogans that are utterly meaningless. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) if he has got—[Interruption.] Okay, if he does not want to intervene he can keep his mouth shut. In 2015, George Osborne gave us a “long-term economic plan” that changed, on average, every three months until he resigned. In 2017, we had “strong and stable”, leaving Britain weaker and less stable than it has ever been in peacetime. In 2019, we had “get Brexit done”, which meant we all got done over by Brexit, and in 2019 also we had an “oven-ready deal” that left most of us feeling that we had been stuffed like Christmas turkeys. This month’s catchphrase is “levelling up”. Looking at the detail of this “levelling up” Budget, it is like claiming that you have levelled out the potholes on the road by digging a massive great hole somewhere else in the road to supply the rubble to fill in the original potholes. It is about filling in holes left behind elsewhere in our economy and in our public services by 11-and-a-half years of a failed Tory Government trying unsuccessfully to maintain a failed British state.

The Government want us to believe that they are making things better for some people without making them worse for anybody else. Some people will get a bigger piece of pie, but nobody will have to make do with a wee-er piece of pie. You cannae do that unless the pie is getting bigger, but the fact is that the pie is still much, much smaller than it was when the Tories came to power.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said in response to the Budget:

“For most departments, the budget increases announced today will be welcome, but not enough to reverse the cuts of the 2010s.”

If the best the Tories can say about this Budget is that, with a following wind and a wee bit of luck, they might just be about be able to remediate most of the damaging cuts they have inflicted on us during their term of office, that does not strike me as a cause for celebration. That is why they will not see a great deal of positive responses to the Budget from those on this side of the House.

[Andrew Bowie]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I give way with pleasure.

[Andrew Bowie]

I understand and respect that we have political differences on our respective sides of the House, but surely the hon. Gentleman can join us in welcoming the fact that this Budget delivers the largest ever block grant to the Scottish Government in history since the Scottish Parliament was created. Perhaps he can expand on how he will be pressing the Scottish Government to spend that extra funding that we have delivered from the UK Government to Edinburgh.

[Peter Grant]

The sad thing is that no matter how much anyone in this House presses the Scottish Government on their decisions, a record amount of that money coming back to Scotland has already been decided not by the elected Members of the Scottish Parliament, but by Members of the UK Parliament who could not get elected in Scotland. Record amounts of that money come with strings attached and conditions attached that tell the Scottish Government how they have to spend our money.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about the amount, if he looks carefully, he will see that, yes, there are welcome increases for capital spend, but the day-to-day service provision budgets of the Scottish Government will continue to be under intense pressure. While we welcome the increase in capital spend, the Departments of the Scottish Government—just like the Departments of this Government and the departments of local authorities the length and breadth of England and Wales—will find that the resources to meet the ever-growing demand on their day-to-day services will be as tightly pressed as ever.

While the Government will try to pull the wool over our eyes and say, “It is all covid’s fault”, we cannot and will not let them forget that the British Government’s management of the economy during covid has been among the worst of the world’s major economies. The International Monetary Fund has predicted that the long-term economic damage from covid in the UK will be worse than in the other G7 economies. Even that does not tell the whole story, because while the Secretary of State rejoiced in the fact that we hope the long-term economic damage of covid will be restricted to 2%, he forgot to tell us that Brexit is twice as bad as that. I wonder why he forgot to mention that the long-term, self-inflicted damage of Brexit is likely to be twice as bad as the long-term damage of covid.

National Security and Investment Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Peter Grant and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Grant]

Q You were suggesting earlier that the definition of the national security interest needs to be widened to include other national interests such as the strategic economic interest. Are you suggesting that there are some businesses or some assets in the United Kingdom that, although they do not have any national security implications, should not be allowed to be bought over by a company whose ultimate controlling partner remains anonymous?

David Offenbach: Well, I remember there was an outcry years ago when Michael Portillo was a Defence Minister and they were going to sell the Ministry of Defence. There was an outcry and it was withdrawn. Should Admiralty Arch become a hotel or is that an asset? These are the sort of issues which, if they come up, will be dealt with at the time. I like to think that certain things are fairly sacrosanct. We would not sell Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle to a foreign buyer if we did not know who they were—or at all, in fact.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Q Mr Offenbach, thank you very much. I have a very quick question. You ran through a long list of acquisitions at the beginning of your evidence, most of which I think you would suggest were not in the national interest, although people may disagree. Given the Bill as it stands, which, if any, of those acquisitions would have been thwarted or prevented by it? Which, if any, of those acquisitions would have fallen foul of running the risk of being a threat to national security?

David Offenbach: The answer is that one is not quite sure. That is why I want to widen the definition. The reason why there are 17 different areas and categories in the Bill is that it is hard to know what national security is at any particular time and how it is reflected in the business that is actually being considered. The only way to make sure that something does not slip through the net is to have a slightly wider definition. There is no definition of national security itself in the Bill, which is perhaps why strategic, research and development, innovation or other issues should be brought in. Then one can be quite sure one has not accidentally lost an asset where there are national security issues.

National Security and Investment Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Peter Grant and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Q Professor Martin, I have been listening with interest—it has been fascinating—especially when you were talking about the need to balance national security, the national interest and economic security. I have been reading the very good briefing by the Law Society of England and Wales, which suggests that the Bill could be improved by the insertion of a definition of national security. Do you agree?

Professor Martin: I do not vehemently disagree with that suggestion, but I am not persuaded by it. It is not a new issue. I remember cases—they have nothing to do with this—going back to the aftermath of the so-called global war on terror, with demands during inquiries for definitions of national security. I am not sure what that would achieve other than it would be heavily litigated. In terms of both definitions of national security and the categories of technology, a better answer is a drumbeat of reviewable activity, which is by definition transparent, about how the Government interpret the scope of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, and the sort of cases it applies to so that, over time, you build up a broadly accepted framework—of course, not everyone will accept it—that is seen to be fair and rational.

[Peter Grant]

Q I understand the reluctance to have an explicit legal definition of national security, but would there be a benefit in having an “except for” clause that makes it clear that certain activities do not come under the category of a threat to national security? Would that help to allay fears about infringements of rights of democratic participation—the right to protest and so on?

Professor Martin: I certainly would not be against things like that, if it could be done in a way that did not compromise the wider use of the Bill, because I do not think there is intent to interfere in the democratic process. I think the intelligence services take that pretty seriously. I remember in other contexts, when asked to co-operate on cyber-security with other countries, given that some cyber-security capabilities—by no means all—can be intrusive, that a lot of due diligence is always done on whether they could be turned by more authoritarian regimes against their own people. I would not object to that in principle. I do not know whether you have a case in mind when you say that might be necessary, but I have an open mind on that.

National Security and Investment Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Peter Grant and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Grant]

Q In your experience, is that a technique that either the Chinese Communist party or other potential hostile players either have used or are likely to use if it is in their interests? Do you have knowledge, for example, of China using non-disclosure territories to set up companies in order to try to invest in the UK or elsewhere? Are you aware of them using the influence of the technology, for example, to try to exert influence on companies that do not, at first glance, appear to be directly owned from China?

Charles Parton: I have to say that that is outside my expertise, but I do think it is an extremely good and important question that could be researched relatively easily. Forgive me if I am pushing RUSI here, but I suspect that RUSI has the capability in one of its teams to do some data mining on that, and come up with an answer. It is a very important question, but I am not aware of any research, though there may be some, that goes deeply into that question. It is certainly one that should be followed up.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Good morning, Mr Parton. The Bill obviously aims to protect national security while promoting investment in the United Kingdom and not dissuading any inward investment into the country. With your experience, and given everything that you have said this morning, do you think the Bill will succeed in its aims?

Charles Parton: Again, I am not a legal expert, but it seems to set out the legal framework. It all very much depends on the structures and mechanisms, and the resourcing of them, that are set up to ensure whether the judgments about a particular company or a piece of academic research and the technology from them should be blocked or allowed through. I put it back to the Committee: if its detailed research, and the measures that go into the Bill, show that whatever organisation is set up is sufficient unto the job, and that the channels are there to ensure that all these small and sometimes obscure technologies are at least passed by it, that is a really important piece of work.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Debate between Peter Grant and Andrew Bowie

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I fully respect the hon. Gentleman as well, as he knows, but I put it back to him that the Scottish Government have through their actions shown themselves to be disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament on binding motions, for example on primary 1 testing or the named persons legislation or fracking, when the Scottish Government abstained, or possibly the offensive behaviour at football Act, all of which they decided were advisory motions that the Government did not have to abide by.

[Peter Grant]

I am interested that the hon. Gentleman says that the Scottish Government decided these were advisory motions. Is it not the fact that they were advisory motions under the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament, exactly like the advisory motions from the Opposition that this Government have ignored for the last three or four years? Can he give a single instance when a binding motion of the Scottish Parliament has not been complied with by the Scottish Government or indeed Scottish Executive prior to 2007? A single example would do.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am not here to debate these issues; I am here to point out the rank hypocrisy of SNP Members in putting their names to a motion demanding that this Government publish legal advice when they themselves have not done so on countless occasions, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) pointed out, recently when the Scottish Government’s Brexit Minister refused to publish their own legal advice for their continuity Bill. So I ask SNP Members what has changed: have they changed their minds on this, and do they believe now that it is in the interests of the country and of all Governments at every level—from here at Westminster to Holyrood to Cardiff to Belfast—to publish legal advice in full? If so, that is quite a change from where they were six years ago, and quite a change from where they were even six weeks ago, and it would lead to some interesting questions on the Floor of the Scottish Parliament.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Peter Grant and Andrew Bowie

Monday 22nd January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bowie]

I absolutely accept that. That was the case at the time, of course, but the people of Scotland went to the polls in 2014 in the full knowledge that a referendum on our membership of the EU was on the table. It was January 2013 when David Cameron made his speech at Bloomberg stating his intention to hold a referendum on our membership of the EU if the Conservatives secured a majority at the 2015 general election. The people of Scotland went to the polls in September 2014 in the full knowledge that that would happen if we won a majority.

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman remind us how David Cameron’s party got on in Scotland in 2015, when it put that referendum promise in its manifesto? How many MPs did the Tories get elected in 2015?

[Andrew Bowie]

It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I tend to reflect more favourably on the result this year, when 13 Scottish Conservatives were returned to this Parliament and, sadly, the Scottish National party lost 21 seats to various Unionist parties. As much as I would like to continue that debate for the entire evening, I must carry on.

In June 2016, 17.5 million people voted to leave the EU and 16 million people voted to remain. That was a conclusive result, which must be respected by all who claim to be democrats. We are leaving the EU, but we are not—this is absolutely key—leaving Europe. That has been recognised on countless occasions by the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. We will remain the closest of friends and allies outwith the single market, the customs union and the political bodies of the European Union. It is evident from my discussions last week and from discussions at a far higher level than mine that our friends in Europe recognise that, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to begin the summing up of the debate. Interestingly, no one wanted to speak about how a no-deal Brexit would be a good idea. That is not surprising: I suspect that all 650 Members of the House know, deep down in their hearts, that leaving the EU without a deal would be almost criminally incompetent on the negotiators’ part.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who introduced the debate, did what a representative of the Petitions Committee should do: he presented both sides of the argument. I commend him for that. I would be a bit concerned if one of the benefits of Brexit was that we went back to being what he described as a “buccaneering maritime trading nation”. Buccaneers were the state-sponsored international terrorists of their day. The fact that we can hark back—even jokingly—to days when part of Britain’s power as a trading nation was founded on piracy, theft, murder and similar crimes may be an indication of how we have got into the state we are in now.

There is a tendency—certainly in sections of the right-wing media and the right wing of the Conservative party—to build up the days of the empire, when everything was wonderful, and say, “Can’t we just go back to the days when Britannia ruled the waves and waived the rules? Everything will be fine.” No, we cannot, because 6.5 billion to 7 billion people on the other side of the water are saying, “No—this is our country. You are not getting to run India, Pakistan or Kenya in the interests of a handful of British businesses in the way you did before.”

[Andrew Bowie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I will.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

I call Ross Thomson—sorry, Andrew Bowie.

[Andrew Bowie]

I have been called much worse, Mrs Moon. I may be wrong—forgive me—but I did not hear anyone in this Chamber, the House of Commons or anywhere else say that we should go back to the days when we ruled India or that we should rule the waves and bring back the empire. That is simply not what we are debating.

[Peter Grant]

Perhaps I have misunderstood what a buccaneering maritime trading nation is or what period in history it refers to. If so, I am happy to apologise, but the days of the buccaneers were those of international pirates and terrorists sponsored by businesses in one country in effect to terrorise the interests of other countries.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) made a powerful, well-put-together contribution. Importantly, she did not talk just about trade. Because trade is such a vital part of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, it is easy to forget all the other benefits that come from EU membership, such as open skies. There was recently an interesting suggestion that MPs should be allowed to know which of their constituents sign petitions as well as how many of them do so. I would like to go back to the 107 of my constituents who signed the petition—that is 0.12% of the electorate—and say, “Have you heard of open skies? Did you know that it existed when you voted to leave the European Union, or when you signed the petition saying we should leave without a deal? Did you really understand that, without a deal, British-owned and operated airlines will not have automatic authority to land their aircraft or even cross over European airspace after take-off? The only way they will be allowed to do that is through getting a deal.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I think that that prospect is becoming much less likely as time goes on. We certainly can retain a lot of the benefits of EU membership. We can do that by staying in the single market. There has never been a referendum vote by the people of the United Kingdom to leave the single market, so it is perfectly legitimate for the Government to admit that they have got that wrong, and to go back on it.

I was quite interested when a Member—I think it was the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)—referred to the high turnout in the EU referendum and used that as a basis for treating it as binding, conclusive and final. It might surprise some people, but the percentage of eligible voters in the UK who voted to leave the European Union was lower than the percentage of eligible voters in Catalonia who voted to leave Spain. I suggest that if the EU vote is binding, conclusive and final, the future of Catalonia has been determined by its people. Of course, the Government do not want to fall out with Spain, so they will not recognise that.

[Andrew Bowie]

The difference between those two referendums is that the one on our membership of the European Union was legal, whereas the one on Catalonia’s membership of Spain was not legal in any way. It was an illegal referendum, as has been recognised by the European Union and the United Nations.

[Peter Grant]

It was legal according to the wish of the people of Catalonia. The referendum in Gibraltar was illegal, but the United Kingdom was quite happy to recognise it and act on its result—and I think it was right. We must be very careful about quoting the European Union as the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable as a way for any nation or people to seek to determine its own future. That does not quite sound like taking back control to me.

To go back to the matter we are supposed to be debating—the petition signed by just over 137,000 people across the United Kingdom—part of the issue I have with it is that some of the statements of fact at the start are quite simply untrue. The European Union is not, and never has been, intent on deliberately punishing the United Kingdom for a decision by its people. For all its faults, at its heart, the European Union wants to see itself as an organisation that respects democracy. That is why, despite the comments from the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who has not been able to stay for the rest of the debate, it will not be easy to get back in after we leave. The United Kingdom would be disqualified from applying for membership of the European Union because we are not democratic enough, since more than half of our legislators in the UK Parliament are not elected but appointed on patronage.

The European Union sees itself as an organisation that wants to recognise the will of the people, whether in elections or referendums. What it has said, and will continue to say—I do not think the Government have quite got this yet—is that under no circumstances will the European Union allow the United Kingdom to have a better relationship with the EU by leaving than we would have had had we stayed. That is perfectly understandable and logical; it would be astonishing if it did anything different.

The petition also talks about a “settlement fee”. There is no settlement fee. There have been discussions to agree the liabilities that the United Kingdom has accrued through commitments it made as a member of the European Union, and any liabilities due to come back to the United Kingdom in the same way. Although it is on a bigger scale and more complex, it is a bit like somebody deciding to leave the house they rent before the end of the month and expecting to get a couple of weeks’ rent back because they decided not to stay until the end of the rental period.

If we scale that up several million times, that is what the European Union has been saying to the UK and what the UK has accepted in its relationship with the European Union. Talking about it as a settlement fee or a divorce payment, as many in the media have done, is misleading and steers people down the path of saying, “This is clearly unfair. Let’s just leave without even bothering to wait to fulfil our international legal obligations.”

I think the reason that the petition has attracted so many signatures has been mentioned. There is a clear malaise about politics in these islands. People are fed up with politicians and political parties. They are fed up with the notion that someone can tell blatant lies during a referendum campaign and it does not matter as long as they still win at the ballot box. People do not want that any more. They are fed up with politicians who make promises when everybody knows the promise will be broken.

I am sorry to say that we have not seen any change in that practice from the present Government; we only have to look at the backsliding on the firm commitment that there would be changes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in the Commons on Report to avoid any undermining of the devolution settlement. That was a clear promise given by the Secretary of State for Scotland, which was completely ignored when the crunch came. When politicians are allowed to break promises like that and get away with it, it is no wonder that the public begin to lose faith in all of us.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Andrew Bowie

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

Each application has to be looked at in its own individual context. It is obviously not for me or this House to decide where each state is in terms of its candidate status, but for the Council of the European Union. I know that that is going through at this very moment.

The third and fourth decisions of the EU Council are necessary to implement a co-operation agreement between the European Union and Canada on competition enforcement. Canada is one of the United Kingdom’s oldest and closest partners: we have been allies in conflicts for over a century and we have a shared past, strong family links and shared values. As if to underline that closeness, Canadian and British troops, as well as European and other NATO service personnel, are working closely, side by side, as part of Exercise Joint Warrior along the north coast of Scotland. It is because of this closeness, and our shared history and values, that many in this House and beyond find it so frustrating that it has taken over eight years for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement to be agreed between the European Union and Canada. Even then, it almost came unstuck due to the complex internal machinations of Wallonian politics—I was going to make a comment about unchecked devolution, but I have thought better of it. I just wonder whether a UK-Canada free trade deal might take a slightly shorter time.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for reminding us that as well as the co-operation with Canada, subject to this proposed Act, a much more significant and detailed co-operation agreement was finalised not so long ago. He will be aware that while the Bill has been offered a potential six hours debating time on the Floor of the House, the CETA deal was agreed without a single minute’s debate on the Floor of the House. Does he believe that that allowed the House to properly influence such an important trade deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was well before my time in this House so I would not feel entirely comfortable commenting on that. This debate is not about CETA.

The decisions taken in the EU Council being approved by us today for agreement by the European Parliament will replace the 1999 competition and co-operation agreement. As the Minister said, the agreement replicates and builds on the provisions in the earlier agreement by allowing the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau to exchange evidence obtained during investigations, including confidential information and personal data. These decisions will further help British businesses thrive internationally, as both Canadian and European business benefit from strong international competition law. On anti-competitive business practices, we must continue to work with Europe and Canada after we leave the European Union. We on the Conservative Benches know that the only way to reliably increase long-term living standards is through trade. Fair competitive trade is, as we know, the catalyst for reducing poverty, spreading prosperity and fostering innovation.

An outward-looking global Britain, as we will be, must continue to fight fair for business practices across the globe to ensure that free trade works for everyone. I hope the European Union recognises that the approval of its agreements is done in good faith, because it benefits citizens and businesses across the United Kingdom, Europe and Canada. In approving these decisions, we not only signal our commitment to the future of a peaceful and prosperous Europe, reaffirming our position as its closest and most dependable friend, but signal our continued desire to promote fair competition, free trade and an ambitious future for ourselves and our partners across the world.

[Peter Grant]

I am happy to speak in support of the Bill. As I mentioned in my intervention, it seems ironic that something that appears to attract little opposition and not even a great deal of concern across the House could, if necessary, be granted a total of six hours of debate—tonight’s allocation and what we had on Second Reading—on the Floor of the House, yet massively important and much more contentious EU legislation, such as the CETA deal, is guaranteed no time whatever on the Floor of the House. The Government were eventually dragged kicking and screaming into an upstairs Committee room for an hour and a half after the CETA deal had been signed off but before it was finally ratified. That was after months, if not years, of determined efforts by the European Scrutiny Committee, whose scrutiny process was ignored and overridden by the Government on that and on so many other matters. I will come back in a moment to explain why that is so vital, but it seems ironic that something relatively non-contentious requires an Act of Parliament before the Minister can sign it when Ministers from all parties have quite happily signed much more contentious EU documents in the past without any appropriate reference back to this House.

I want first to speak about the applications from Albania and Serbia. We should enthusiastically welcome the movements in those two countries. I am one of a fairly small number in here who can remember the days when Albania was like the North Korea of Europe. Even before the fall of the iron curtain, even when the Stasi were in charge in East Germany and even when the Ceausescu regime was in charge in Romania, Albania was seen to be the most isolationist place of all. We should welcome the fact that it now wants to move closer to the more modern family of European nations. And look at where Serbia has come from in the past 20 or 25 years; we should enthusiastically welcome the fact that it is now asking to be allowed to co-operate much more closely in the protection of human rights and the eradication of racism and xenophobia. We should encourage the Serbian people and Government to continue on that journey.