---

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 8)

It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has distinguished ministerial experience of these issues; I welcome the benefit that his contribution brought to the debate. Some say that these many days of European debates are a little like ““Groundhog Day””, given that the same things are repeated over and again. I have attended the debates regularly, and I like to be a keen observer. I have noticed that there are nuanced differences in the spirit of the debate on the different days; some subjects are a little controversial, but others are discussed in a more consensual tone. I had high hopes that today's debate on climate change might err more towards consensus and have more agreement than we have managed so far. The Conservative Back-Bench amendment is clearly ridiculous: to argue that it would be better to remove references to climate change in the treaty does not stack up, and I am pleased that the Conservative Front-Bench team has said that it will not support it. However, the notion that action is more important than words is right, although it is not the only thing—political priorities also send an important signal, so having the references in the treaty is welcome. The Conservatives must recognise the importance of Europe in tackling climate change. They have anti-European sentiments, but must recognise that they cannot have it both ways."““I think from the point of view of the Conservative party, pursuing the green line is all talk and no action””—" those are not my words, but those of the former chair of the European Parliament environment committee, the Conservative MEP Caroline Jackson. Successive treaties have developed EU environmental power—and rightly so, as the global environmental challenges that we face clearly require international co-operation. It is therefore very welcome that climate change will be explicitly listed in article 174, and that the environmental objectives will now include"““promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.””" The House has already had the opportunity to discuss the energy policy changes in the Lisbon treaty, but it is worth reiterating that there are obviously clear advantages for tackling climate change in the new objective for European energy policy in article 176A: to "““promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy””." Article 188R, the solidarity clause, also has an impact on climate change. It states that"““The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster.””" The issue of a terrorist attack may have been covered on a different day. However, with particular reference to climate change, scientists tell us that our best realistic hope is for a 2o rise in temperatures; we can expect an increasing frequency of natural disasters, so the solidarity clause is also welcome. As has been mentioned, the EU will be able to play an important role in adaptation; as the science gets better, we will be able to work out on which areas that 2o rise will have the biggest impact and where we need to take action.