Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Jim Murphy): I am delighted to respond to the debate on the amendments. It was ledpretty gracefully, I thoughtby the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) in his typical fashion. We have also heardperhaps less enjoyably, but none the less interestinglyabout the 4 am dreams of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), and we have been told how the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was seduced, no less, into voting for membership of the European Community back then. I believe that that is what he was implying.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). They are becoming a formidable double act, if they do not mind my saying so. In a series of telling interventions, they got to the core of the choices facing the House tonight. We also heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who put the debate into a wider, international context. He referred to the unanimous conclusions of the Select Committee on these matters. Paragraph 162 of its report of 25 November states:
We recommend that the Government...continue to encourage its EU partners to take a robust and united approach to dealing with Moscow, in the energy field and beyond.
That is the unanimous conclusion of all members, of all parties, of the Select Committee, including the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). It therefore seems to be accepted across the House that there is a need for a concerted effort and a united approach on energy policy, not only in Russia but in the wider international sphere.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who brought great wisdom and experience to the debate on the amendment. He talked about the changing nature of the debate, the negotiations on sovereignty and other matters relating to energy policy. He clearly articulated that, under the old arrangements, he campaigned against and would have voted against proposals such as those before us this evening. He said, however, that, because of the changes that we have secured on determining our own energy mix, retaining control of energy resources and ensuring that taxation remains an issue of unanimity, the proposals now have his enthusiastic endorsement.
Mr. Bone: I have sat here in the Committee for two days, but I have been unable to speak because of the short length of time allowed for the debates. Will the Minister take this on board and do something about altering next weeks business, so that we can have more time to discuss these matters in Committee than is allowed for under this funny motion business?
Mr. Murphy: That is not an issue for the debate on the amendments but, as I said earlier in the week during our debate on the business motion, we intend to continue to be flexible when we can. It is important that the hon. Gentleman be given the opportunity to articulate his belief that Britain would be better off out of Europe altogether. That is an argument that deserves to have a greater airing in the House, so that we can debate it in greater detail.
Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) just made, to which the Minister replied, is very important. Perhaps we misunderstood, but I thought we had clearly been given to understand that flexibility would be shown and that there would be a change in relation to all the days allotted for these debates, yet we found that the time allocation today was four and a half hours and one and a half hours. We might have misunderstood the position, but it seems clear that the Minister has no intention of changing the timetable. I hope that I am wrong, in the interests of conciliation. We really must have some kind of response to the point that my hon. Friend has raised, in relation to every single day.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair and it is certainly outside the scope of our debate on the amendments currently before the House. The hon. Gentleman will know that there may be other means, arranged by the business managers, whereby that matter could be discussed.
Mr. Murphy: These amendments would exclude the provisions in the Lisbon treaty that define the competence on energy from having any effect in UK law. The Lisbon treaty includes energy in the list of areas of shared competences. Since Maastricht, the EU has had competence over energy, which is what enables the EU to enter into agreements with other countriesfor example, the treaty establishing the energy community, which expands the EU single market in energy to the states of south-east Europe.
Article 2C of the Lisbon treaty defines the Unions competences, including energy as a shared competence, which the lead amendment is designed to remove. The treaty explicitly states that competences not conferred on the EU remain with member states, so it provides greater clarity than before.
Article 176, the target of some of the amendments, sets out the EUs competence for energy. Removing that article would prevent the UK from implementing any actions agreed under the new legal base. The whole purpose of setting out the EUs competence in energy is to clarify for the first time that the EU can do so and make it easier for it to do so. The appearance of a separate energy article in the Lisbon treaty reflects the growing importance of EU action to help to achieve the UKs energy and climate change priorities. This new article will help to ensure that policies on energy markets, energy security and energy efficiency are coherent and mutually reinforcing. That is vital in order successfully to drive the transition to a high-growth, low-carbon economy in Europe. This dedicated legal base helps to achieve that for the first time.
The new article also strikes the right balance in preserving the rights of member states to control their own energy resources. We sought safeguards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned, and achieved them. New article 176Aold article 147states:
Such measures shall not affect a Member States right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.
Mr. Lilley: Will the Minister confirm my point that qualified majority voting would still apply to decisions about the allocation of supplies of resources throughout the community?
Mr. Murphy: The point about QMV in energy is that the new article should make it easier to deliver the effective EU energy-efficiency policies that we all seek to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke earlier about the fact that France and Italy have not yet achieved liberalisation of their energy markets, yet 20 million of our own citizens enjoy the services of French and German energy companies. The challenge, of course, and the imponderable question, is this: if we were to remove EU competence for energy, how could we achieve that type of market access and liberalisation of the market seen in France and Germany, which all political parties claim to want to achieve?
Mr. Jenkin: With the greatest respect, the Minister did not answer yes or no to a very plain yes or no question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), so let me try putting it in a different way. The Minister cites paragraph 2 of article 176A, but will he assure the House that under no circumstances could the European Union vote by qualified majority voting on the allocation of a member states energy resources? Will he give us that assurance?
Mr. Murphy: Article 176 is very clear. It states:
Such measures shall not affect a Member States right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.
Mr. Murphy: It is very clear indeed.
Mr. Cash: The Minister omitted the following words, which go to the heart of the point I raised with the Secretary of State:
without prejudice to Article 175(2)(c).
That takes us back to the arrangements for the approximation of laws and the internal market. Therefore, the Minister ought to be more explicit in his explanation, because he is fundamentally misconstruing the position.
Mr. Murphy: I would never seek to do such a thing, either implicitly or explicitly, in the hon. Gentlemans presence. It is clear that nothing in the treaty affects the allocation of energy reserves or stocks. The new article does, however, strike the right balance in preserving the rights of member states. The Opposition have said that they support the principle of EU co-operation on energy, but removing all EU competence over energy, as amendment No. 33 would, would prevent the UK from giving effect to any agreement we reach with EU partners.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden talked about the inclusion in a legally binding protocol of undistorted competition. President Sarkozy has acknowledged that that is symbolic rather than substance and [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rayleigh might scoff at President Sarkozy; that is his business, not mine. I do not know whether he would also scoff at the Law Societys guide to the Lisbon treaty, published only yesterday, which states of the protocol on competition:
This does not change the current legal position.
That is made clear by no less a body than the Law Societyof the United Kingdom, not of France.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked why we could not be just like Norway or Switzerlandand, if he was to complete the list, like Liechtenstein, which is the third great nation in that triumvirate. Norway is not in the EU; some Opposition Members realise that, and it is what they celebrate about the country. However, it still has to apply all EU energy acquis in full. So if we were to follow the hon. Gentlemans suggestion of being like Norway, we would havelock, stock and barrelevery EU energy policy, but with no influence over or say in the policy.
Opposition Members have sought to criticise the principle of solidarity. That principle was first established in article 2 of the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Shepherd indicated assent.
Mr. Murphy:
The hon. Gentleman is fair enough to acknowledge that. Many Conservative Members now repudiate that treaty and wish they had not voted for it, judging by their comments this evening. Many Members of the Labour party and of other Opposition
parties recognise, however, that solidarity in energy policy is important. The Conservative Opposition castigate that solidarity, but it is celebrated on the Labour Benches because it is crucial. As article 176 of the Lisbon treaty states, when there is a terrorist attack or a natural or man-made disaster, such solidarity is a part of Community feeling, a part of human civilisation and a part of internationalism. It is a key aspect of the concept of solidarity that we stand by those who experience terrorist attack or natural or man-made disaster. Labour Members believe in the principle of solidarity; in times of danger or disaster, we are stronger together and weaker if isolated.
Mr. Shepherd: Of course we believe in a generalised sense of solidarity. The Minister gave a good description of that; as his illustrations made clear, it is to do with sympathy and common humanity. What we are discussing now, however, is a legal system. That is the distinction.
Mr. Murphy: What I am talking about is structured solidarity that ensures that the EU can provide support at a time of terrorist attack or man-made or natural disaster. The fact is that we can also benefit from this EU solidarity and, in principle, we support it.
Martin Horwood: If the Minister wants a concrete example of the expression of solidarity, he has only to look to what happened in Gloucestershire last summer. The floods resulted in an application to the European solidarity fund. It was supported by local Conservative Members as well as others. That kind of practical application would be prevented if the concept of solidarity were removed from these treaties.
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right.
The Opposition amendment invites the House to believe that every Government in Europe, left and right, cheered on by every Opposition in Europe apart from this one, have knowingly and voluntarily entered into a European conspiracy within a fiendish French plot that will bring gas rationing and shortages to Birmingham. That is clearly not the case, and I ask the House to reject the amendments that have been tabled.
Mr. Francois: I have three minutes in which to speak, so may I briefly make a point about time? We have only one and half hours to debate amendments because of the Governments business motion. Again, a number of hon. Members rose to their feet at the conclusion of the allocated time as they had not been able to speak. We did not manage to reach the second group of amendments, so we cannot vote on amendment No. 142. That is a shame, because I was minded to support it and to ask my hon. Friends to do the same. Again, the promise of line-by-line scrutiny has not been adhered to.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), said that he did not always agree with our Back Benchers. We might not have agreed with the Liberal Democrat Back Benchers, had any of them bothered to turn up for the debate. He said that he did not agree with our amendments. We might not have agreed with his
amendments, had the Liberals bothered to table any on this subject. The only amendment they keep trying to table, which has been repeatedly ruled out of order, is one on an in/out referendum. They do so because they are fundamentally split on what to do about a referendum on the EU constitution.
Let me turn to the Governments position. Our amendment is largely based on their original negotiating position. The powers that we are attempting to remove from the treaty are exactly the same ones they attempted to oppose and then gave in on. Their own amendment tabled by the Ministers predecessor stated:
This provision is unnecessary as all aspects of energy policy are effectively covered elsewhere in the Treaty e.g. single market, environment. In addition, we have detailed concerns on the text, which we consider may have the unintended effect of changing the boundaries of EU competence and the types of measure which will be subject to unanimity.
As the Government were too weak to insist on that, we are attempting to do what they should have done in the first place. That is the basis of our position. They accuse us of exaggerating, when all we are trying to do is to keep them honest in the first place. On that basis, and because the Minister has failed to answer the question all the way through, we are not satisfied, so I seek to test the will of the Committee on amendment No. 204.
Question put, That the amendment be made:
Next Section | Index | Home Page |