Climate Change Bill [HL]

This has been a useful debate. As has been said, there are two amendments here which would make key changes to the Bill. The first, which has been concentrated on to a large extent, would replace the concept of international aviation and shipping emissions with emissions from international passenger travel and imports or exports of goods. It would also put a time limit of five years on the Secretary of State’s ability to exclude the emissions from our targets or require him to come down to Parliament after five years if they had not been included. I appreciate the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. It has just been commented on in the Lobby—votes are useful for having a chat with people—that the amendment is very clever; it is trying to address the practical problems we looked at in Committee. We accept that. For the most part, the amendment grapples with precisely the same issues that I understand the Government grappled with when drafting the clause in the first place. I agree that one possible way of including the emissions in the Bill is through the categorisation described in the amendment; that is, passenger travel or freight. I assure the House that Clause 25 is drafted sufficiently widely that, should we decide that the amendment is the most appropriate way forward—I have indicated that it has a lot going for it—it would be perfectly possible to define the emissions in the way that the noble Lord suggested. However, there could be practical problems—we will find this all the way through not just the Bill but also the way in which we operate the policies—in relation to transport carrying both passengers and freight; for example, a boat with passengers and freight. The amendment might also risk international rail transport via Eurotunnel being included in measures to combat emissions from shipping and aviation industries on the grounds that Eurotunnel also carries international passengers and freight. My notes go to greater length, but I do not see the need to go further into them because I am offering practical arguments. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, I do not do so because I do not like the amendment; I am trying to give practical reasons why we cannot accept it, as I did in the case of Amendment No. 64. I do not want to nitpick this amendment because, as I have said, the noble Lord’s formulation, which we believe can be covered by the Bill as drafted, may—to use an analogy used in another context earlier today—provide a lifeboat for the way in which we come to a solution. Amendment No. 116 would set a time limit for including the emissions in our targets, or require the Secretary of State to explain to Parliament why they had not been included. I again sympathise with the noble Lord’s intention. As has been indicated in the speeches made, the House shares the desire to tackle emissions from the sectors concerned as quickly and comprehensively as possible. I believe that there is also a strong measure of agreement that they are best tackled internationally; I do not think that anyone is arguing for completely unilateral measures. However, we come back to the same question as to the best way to reflect the points in the Bill in the first place. I make it clear that we have no problem with the idea of parliamentary scrutiny on the issue; indeed, the Government’s own amendments would strengthen Parliament’s role. The Bill already provides considerable scope for further parliamentary debate on the issues; for instance, in the context of the Government’s orders setting carbon budgets, or amending the level of the 2050 target, which must be passed by affirmative resolution. However, as we have already discussed, the problem with setting any arbitrary deadline, which is what the five years proposed by the amendment is, is precisely that: it is purely arbitrary. We need to have a better reason for having a deadline that might cause us problems. We do not want to suggest to our partners in the international negotiations that we are being driven by an artificial domestic deadline rather than a desire to achieve the right global solution, which could cause a problem for our credibility in negotiations. To avoid that risk, we are looking, as we indicated in response to the previous amendment, to maintain as much flexibility as possible to include these emissions when the context is right. However, I assure the House that we will not delay. When it is possible to move forward, we will do so. For instance, with international aviation emissions, we have already said that once the European Union emissions trading rules have been finalised, we will ask the Committee on Climate Change for its advice on the methodology. The timing for this will depend on progress at EU level, but we hope that the emissions trading rules will be finalised during this calendar year. We do not wish to pre-empt the committee’s advice, but we would expect to be in a position to decide whether to include international aviation emissions in our targets ahead of the second carbon budget under the Bill, which runs from 2013 to 2017. The situation with respect to international shipping emissions is more complex, as we have already discussed, but I hope that my answer provides noble Lords with some reassurance. We have always said that we want this to be a genuinely transparent process. I can confirm that the Government would be happy to provide regular information to Parliament on progress in the European and international discussions on international aviation and shipping. This should provide greater transparency. I hope that this would reassure both your Lordships and Members of other place that they would be kept fully and regularly up to date on the international negotiations as they develop. I hope that the assurances that I have provided about our commitment to take action on these emissions will persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendment.