---

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)

The hon. Gentleman says that there are too many to choose from, but he could not come up with one during the debate. The second problem that he had was with clarifying his party's nuclear policy. The Liberal Democrats say, ““No nuclear power here, but yes, please, we'll import as much as we can through the interconnector from France.”” It is a fundamentally hypocritical position. They do not want nuclear power here but are happy to use cheap French nuclear power and leave the French to deal with decommissioning and waste disposal. The key issue in this debate is whether it is right to give the European Union greater powers to determine energy flows in times of crisis. It is a question not of interpretation of the treaty but of a fundamental and genuine difference of opinion. The change suggested is to allow the Council of Ministers the power to divert energy supplies from one country to another if it deemed it necessary in a time of crisis, and because the issue would be decided under QMV the country concerned would not be able to resist the change. It is quite legitimate for some to argue that that is the right thing to do, but overwhelmingly we Opposition Members fundamentally disagree, and that alone is grounds for a referendum. I ask Government Members not to misinterpret us. We are not saying that the United Kingdom Government should not help other countries that are facing an energy crisis—we have a great history as a generous nation that carries out its international responsibilities well—but it should be up to our Government and other sovereign Governments acting independently to decide whether it is right to give other countries that help. We should not be forced to do so. When my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee asked the Secretary of State to clarify the circumstances in which that might happen, the Secretary of State could not do so. He basically said, ““Somebody will give you an answer on that later.”” So much for line-by-line scrutiny. It is simply not happening in this debate. Ours is not a selfish little England position; we believe that it is right for every country to have the relevant powers. That works both ways. Two years ago, when this country was short of gas—and just after the Minister for Energy said that we were awash with gas—we discovered that France was not, as we had hoped, exporting gas through the interconnector, as it is legally obliged to keep a certain amount of gas in storage for its own domestic use. Under the treaty, France could be obliged to overrule its national laws and export gas even if it does not wish to do so. It would be interesting to see that issue at the heart of a French referendum. The treaty's approach will penalise countries that have invested in long-term energy security. We in this country are belatedly making the investment needed to improve our gas security—we are investing in new pipelines, liquefied natural gas facilities and better gas storage facilities—but it would be quite wrong for our gas supplies to be diverted to support another country that had not taken such responsible measures unless our Government had the absolute right to decide whether to allow it. During this debate, there has been much discussion about what will happen and could happen. Whenever the Minister for Europe has been in the Chamber, he has scoffed from the Front Bench every time the word ““could”” has been used, but it is quite right that we in this House should look at what could happen under the treaty. The reason why many people in this country are so disillusioned with the European Union is that they are constantly told that each treaty and new measure means one thing, but they then discover a little while down the line that it means a whole lot of other things that they were never told about. It is therefore quite right for our debate to focus on the powers that the treaty could confer. We have no legal definition of a crisis or of solidarity. The British people need to know that under the treaty, our economic security could be put at risk to solve an energy problem elsewhere in the European Union. The other big issue in this debate is liberalisation. I agree with the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) that the further measures proposed in the treaty are not necessary to take forward the liberalisation of European energy markets. The Secretary of State has not given us any evidence that the European Union does not currently have the power to move forwards with liberalisation. After years of no progress, we are now seeing at least some progress on the uncompetitive practices in use elsewhere in Europe. It seems bizarre that we should need a new treaty just when the European Union is beginning to show that it has real teeth. The treaty moves us in the wrong direction. It will remove the reference to undistorted competition, just because that suits France. It is to the shame of our Ministers that we have given in to demands arising purely from the narrow, nationalistic interest of one other country involved. So let us be clear: we want energy security; we want to cut carbon and we want a realistic price on carbon; we want a growth in renewables; and we want more done on fuel poverty. As we move through the Energy Bill, we will be taking the lead on those issues, and I hope that the Government will respond to the amendment that we tabled. The Secretary of State said in his opening speech that we are out of touch. It is strange that he says so, when we are pushing for exactly the same changes as Ministers previously called for. Let us put the matter to the test. Let us see whether we or the Government are out of touch. Let us put it to a referendum.