Climate Change Bill [HL]

My Lords, I realise that we will cover some similar material when we come to debate the next group of amendments. Therefore, I shall not prejudge Amendment No. 65. Indeed, if Amendment No. 64 is carried, we will not have the opportunity to debate Amendment No. 65. Nevertheless, there are issues that are covered by both groups. One of our best debates in Committee was on this issue. It lasted for a couple of hours. It was probably the longest debate we had on any of these issues. My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, as the transport spokesman in this House, arranged a subsequent meeting so that noble Lords could discuss the issue. That turned out to be useful. The Government agree completely that these are important issues—no one is arguing otherwise—and it is essential that the right decisions are taken based on a proper analysis and the best evidence base. That is why, in response to our previous debate, the Government have now brought forward Amendments Nos. 118 to 120, which would give both Parliament and the Committee on Climate Change a greater role in decisions. I recognise that this group of amendments treats international aviation and shipping emissions differently, as the noble Lord said. I agree that the question of shipping emissions is particularly complex, and it is therefore very likely that we will need to approach international aviation and shipping differently under the Bill. However, I reassure your Lordships that the Bill as it stands does just that. It allows us, if necessary, to include either international aviation or international shipping emissions in our targets ahead of the other. I shall take the issue of international aviation first. As I set out in Committee, the Government’s view is that the best way to deal with international aviation emissions is through action at international level. We are working hard, in the International Civil Aviation Organisation and through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Bali action plan, to find a global solution, and we are already taking action in Europe. We strongly welcome the recent unanimous political agreement to include aviation emissions in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Although the details are not yet finalised, including aviation within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme will mean that aviation emissions from 2012 are capped, that this cap is set at the average of 2004-06 levels, and that any growth in emissions above this cap all the way to 2020 will need to be compensated by emission reductions elsewhere within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The current proposal is that this will apply not just to all flights between the 27 member states but also to all flights which arrive in or leave the EU. On that basis, the scheme will save 183 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—roughly equivalent to the CO2 emissions for the Netherlands in 2004. This is a significant step forward, and I am sure that noble Lords agree that whatever we do under the Bill has to be consistent with the wider European and international framework. As I think has been recognised during our previous debates on these issues, there are real practical difficulties here. That is why we think that we need expert advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change before we take decisions. I do not want to be overly critical of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but when he introduced the amendment I did not hear him mention the mechanism for addressing these practical difficulties. As I said, this is a difficult and complex issue, and that is why we think that the Committee on Climate Change should address it. We will ask the committee, as part of its first task, to advise us straightaway on the impact of including these emissions in our 2050 target. It is also why, once the EU Emissions Trading Scheme rules are agreed, we will ask the committee for its detailed advice on a methodology for including international aviation emissions in our targets. We need to know whether there is a methodology which works and which is compatible with both the EU ETS rules and the wider international context, and what the impact of adopting it would be. Again, these are not straightforward questions, and that is why we believe the best approach is to wait for the committee’s advice. That is also why the Government have tabled Amendment No. 120, which we will come to later. This amendment provides that, before making regulations to include international aviation or international shipping emissions, the Secretary of State must seek, and take account of, advice from the Committee on Climate Change. We think that this is the best way forward. If we were to include international aviation emissions in our targets immediately, as proposed by Amendment No. 117, how would that work in practice? For example, how would the UK’s share of international aviation emissions be identified? Would it be on the basis of the fuel sold within the UK? If so, what would be the risk of perverse impacts, such as planes filling up elsewhere and flying here with a heavier fuel load, which could increase emissions, or transfer traffic simply diverting from Heathrow to Amsterdam or Paris, with no environmental benefits whatever? These are practical issues. If we go unilaterally, it is no good us complaining if other countries take commercial advantage of us, as would be the case. How would this fit with aviation’s inclusion in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, which we expect to start in 2012, and which will probably allocate emissions on a different basis? Would we have two systems running alongside each other? Or would we need to change systems almost as soon as started? This is not really the best approach to regulation on such an important issue. In addition, what would be the implications for the international negotiations if the UK decided unilaterally on a particular way of dividing emissions between countries? How would we avoid undermining our efforts to reach a global deal on this, bearing in mind that we all agree a global deal is required? Across the negotiating table we would be challenged that we had already done it: ““You have chosen your own way; why are you here trying to do a deal with us?””. It does not make practical sense. These are important, practical, questions. I do not say that the Government have all the answers, but we ought to pose questions that were not posed in the moving of the amendments, and then ask the Committee on Climate Change to agree to provide advice on this before we decide whether to include these emissions. We therefore do not think that the approach taken in the amendment is the right one. The Liberal Democrat amendments would require the Secretary of State to define international shipping emissions within three years of Royal Assent. On the other hand, the amendments that we shall come to on this issue set a deadline of action under Clause 25, although I recognise that they take a different approach. However, our concern with the deadlines in these amendments, or indeed any arbitrary deadline, is precisely that—that they are arbitrary. We ought to look at the matter in the round. The Government have made it clear that they are determined to find a comprehensive solution in these sectors and we are pressing internationally to do so. That is the forum in which we have to get the decisions taken. Why create an artificial constraint? That would be the effect of approving these amendments. Negotiations in these areas are incredibly sensitive and the possibility of reaching agreement sometimes hangs by a thread. It will make the negotiations which frequently take place—I am pleased to say I am not too involved in them, but I get involved—on the common agricultural policy among 27 countries look like peace on earth. These will be incredibly sensitive and we will be causing ourselves major problems if we put these amendments in the Bill and tie our hands. We must retain flexibility. To include the emissions in the European and international contexts is right and we are working hard to come to that kind of agreement on an international basis. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord does not press this amendment.