If he will make a statement on the agenda of the French EU presidency.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday that we will continue to focus on an outward-looking European agenda. We look forward to working with the French presidency on climate change, defence and security, migration, and rising food and fuel prices.

Should not Her Majesty's Government be impressing it upon the French presidency that the kindest thing for the treaty of Lisbon is to let it die? The people of Europe do not want it. Some of the matters that the Minister raised at the Dispatch Box a few moments ago are far more important for the people of Europe than this treaty.

The fact is that the United Kingdom Government will not seek to decide, determine or dictate to the Irish Government regarding their next move. It is for the Irish Government to make their decision. I offer an observation in passing: as has been said, the Lisbon treaty is the first treaty that officially recognises children's rights across the EU. Previous treaties recognised animal rights; this treaty recognises children's rights. That is an important innovation and improvement.

Was not President Sarkozy right at the weekend when he said to the former Member for Hartlepool—the future Lord Mandelson, no doubt—that he was responsible for the Irish "No" because of his free trade policies, which frightened Irish farmers into the no lobby? Does the Minister agree with that assessment and does he recognise that the laissez-faire attitude of the EU and its undemocratic roots are having a similar impact on the core vote that might have supported continued membership in this country?

I thank my hon. Friend for the gracious way in which he carefully put his point. I do not agree with him, however. I think that Peter Mandelson is doing a fantastic job as Commissioner. [Interruption.] I had thought, until today, that the Conservative party supported reform of the common agricultural policy as we continue a wider review and reform of Europe's budget so that it reflects the future, rather than the historical past of massive subsidies being paid to farmers instead of protecting the environment.

It would be welcome if the French presidency looked closely at the European neighbourhood policy. A great many projects previously supported by member states are now part of the ENP. Does the Minister agree that, with close attention from the presidency and the Commission, those projects can go from strength to strength?

I do agree, and I had the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman yesterday to discuss many of those issues. Europe has substantial influence in countries on its borders, both to the east and to the south. That is a responsibility and an opportunity, and we should seek to maximise our influence on democracy, the rule of law, human rights, penal reform and a range of other matters. He is absolutely right, and the French presidency shares our ambitions for a European neighbourhood policy that seeks to do more in supporting human rights and democracy.

The Minister for Europe mentioned the problem of high energy prices, but EU policy on climate change and the directive on renewable energy and biofuels will increase energy prices further, so can we have some consistency here? Will the Government stop complaining about high energy costs while supporting measures that will increase them further?

In response to the point raised by the former Minister for Europe, I point out that it is important to reflect the fact that the EU is working on an energy policy and a climate change policy that are about transparency in the market, matching supply and demand, investment in climate change technologies such as carbon capture and storage, and so much else besides. That variety of policies plays an important role in supporting our economies, but also in protecting our environment.

The people of Ireland clearly rejected Lisbon by an emphatic margin on a record turnout, since when The Economist has wisely advised the Government, "Just bury it". Will the Minister answer the question that the Foreign Secretary clearly ducked last week and assure the House that no further work on the External Action Service will be undertaken by British officials, including during the French presidency?

The Foreign Secretary was very clear on this point, as was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister: in light of the Irish referendum result, plans to have discussions on the External Action Service at the General Affairs Council and the European Council were cancelled. That was the right response to the referendum in Ireland. No further work will be carried out, and the work has stopped in the UK until such time as there is a new suggestion from the French presidency or a way forward suggested by the Irish Government. That is very clear.