Examination of Witnesses (Questions 700
- 719)
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE 2006
RT HON
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
MP, MR SIMON
WEBB AND
MR NIGEL
CAMPBELL
Q700 Colin Challen: I was wondering
how high in the order of things the modal shift between short
haul air aviation to high speed rail is. How does the department
regard that as a priority?
Mr Alexander: Of course we are
considering the case for an additional high speed line. Within
that, environmental impacts will be one of the considerations
that we will have to bear in mind. My knowledge of this is limited
given my time in the department. One of the features that one
needs to be aware of is that these high speed trains, if they
travel at the kinds of speeds that are often discussed, use a
lot of energy. The mechanism by which we are looking at this issue
more generally is the Eddington Review. Rod Eddington is undertaking
a review that was jointly commissioned by my predecessor and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be in that context that we
will be looking at these issues. Finally, if you look at the west
coast main line and the differences in terms of journey time between
London and Manchester that have recently been achieved, the idea
that this discussion is only relevant to a brand new, high speed
train link is undermined by the evidence. If you can pretty much
guarantee for people a two hour travelling time from central London
to Manchester Piccadilly, you do begin to see the kind of modal
shift that I am sure this Committee would welcome given the time
it takes to get to Manchester Airport and get back in from Heathrow.
Mr Webb: The Channel Tunnel Rail
Link has been done in two parts. There is quite clear evidence
that the investment we made from the Chunnel up to Ashford has
made a gain. The second phase of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
coming into St Pancras which is going to get the journey to Paris
and Brussels down significantly compared to the current Waterloo
run is expected to tilt that balance further for rail passengers
on those two routes.
Mr Alexander: It has already tilted
the figures if you look at particularly business travellers and
people travelling between Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle. There
is no doubt that already the fact that there is a service which
people can rely on and want to use has meant a significant transfer
of modes.
Q701 Chairman: Is it an explicit
policy now to try and encourage that modal shift from where it
is possible to achieve comparable journey times on a train or
a plane?
Mr Alexander: We want to see the
railway continue to grow. We now have a billion passengers. It
is the fastest growing railway in Europe. We look at the merits
of specific schemes that are brought to us and we are looking
at a lot of these issues in the context of the Eddington Review
which will look more generally at the contribution that transport
infrastructure in particular makes to economic growth. I would
not wish to leave the Committee with an impression that I am saying
that it is implicit in the department's policy that we want to
stop people having the ability to get around. We want to make
sure that there are genuine choices available to people. Whether
that can be by rail or other modes, that is a choice which ultimately
people will make.
Q702 Mr Stuart: Your department is
carrying out a progress review of the 2003 Future of Air Transport
White Paper this year. Could you tell us what the remit of that
review is and particularly tell us whether you are going to reappraise
the need for five new runways as set out in the White Paper?
Mr Alexander: I know that this
was the subject of a fairly lengthy session of this Committee
under a different chairman prior to the last election when my
predecessor gave evidence on the terms of the White Paper that
was published in December 2003. This may disappoint colleagues
around the table but the department, in terms of what we are anticipating
doing towards the end of the year as we undertook to do at the
time of publication in December 2003, published a progress report
on the policies and proposals set out in the White Paper. The
purpose of this is to report progress in implementing the policy
commitments set out in the White Paper and it will not be the
review of all White Paper policies which we remain committed to
as a department.
Q703 Mr Hurd: This is a question
about the emissions trading scheme which is held up as to the
answer for what we do about aviation. Could you share with the
Committee what you see as the key milestones towards delivery
of this scheme and when do you expect it to happen? Could you
reassure the Committee that we are not drifting into a process
that will lead to the allocation of emissions to the industry
that will simply allow them to potter along delivering the fuel
efficiency improvements that they already would deliver under
business as usual, given the high proportion of costs of fuel?
Is there not a risk that we lose this opportunity to control something
that could swamp everything else the department is doing to control
emissions?
Mr Alexander: In terms of the
timing of the emissions trading scheme bringing in aviation, there
is no change in our policy and ambition which is to try and secure
that entry from 2008 or as soon as possible thereafter. This is
a highly complex area. It is inherently international. We are
bound by certain treaty obligations and it is against that backdrop
that we continue to believe that the introduction of aviation
into the emissions trading scheme at European level represents
the most effective means by which we can address the rise in emissions
that we have already discussed. In terms of important milestones,
I would start by identifying the decision and the conclusions
that were reached by the Environment Council back in December
which reflect the fact that we did make significant progress on
this issue during the British presidency of the European Union.
I had some familiarity with these issues when I was the Europe
Minister prior to assuming this office. In terms of the next milestones,
the key milestone, with no disrespect to our colleagues in the
European Parliament who will be debating and voting on this issue
in a plenary session next month, will be when the list of proposals
of the European Commission are brought forward which we anticipate
towards the end of this year. We do regard it as being the way
forward. I read the evidence that was submitted to this Committee
by some of the airlines who were represented. I think it is significant
that even amongst the airline industry there is some awareness
that moving towards the kind of process which would involve aviation
being brought within the ETS is the most effective way forward
to address this challenge. In terms of where we are in those negotiations,
the evidence from the public statements of Lufthansa, even in
the last 48 hours, evidences that the argument is not yet won
within the aviation community. It is also no secret that some
of our international partners are less than convinced of the merits
even of a European scheme, never mind a wider scheme given the
global nature of air travel. Therefore we need to keep working
at it but it is a matter of real pride to us in Britain that we
have been so central to securing that consensus at the Environment
Council and continuing to argue for aviation coming within the
ETS in 2008 or as soon thereafter as we can achieve.
Q704 Mr Hurd: How do you respond
to the specific concerns of the manufacturing industry who say
that airlines are in a better situation than anyone else to pass
on the costs of carbon credits to their customers so they are
naturally inclined just to buy these credits in the market place
and this would drive up the costs for everybody else? The power
of that lobby, Friends of the Earth say, will mean inevitably
that the allocation to airlines will be more generous than the
situation demands. Therefore, we get into this situation where
they are just being allowed to deliver the efficiency improvements
they would do anyway and we are not going to get a transformation.
Mr Alexander: I will ask Simon
to say a word about the anticipated thinking in terms of the entry
of aviation. If you look at the ETS more generally, there were
similarly genuine concerns raised by the operation of the allocation
system at the time of its establishment. Notwithstanding the teething
difficulties that ETS encountered in terms of allocations with
there being too many allocations provided in certain markets,
there is now a growing consensus that, notwithstanding those specific
difficulties around allocation, it was a sensible and rational
way to secure effectiveness in terms of environmental impacts
and also in terms of economic benefits given the stimulus towards
innovation. I do not believe that the hurdles in terms of allocations
are so considerable or so distinctive in terms of the airline
industry that it would be impossible for us to address concerns
that others raise in terms of the allocation policy as part of
the ETS.
Mr Webb: There are two levels
of allocation. One is that we need an overall view on whether
we are going to do the allocation on an EU-wide basis or by countries.
The debate is going on. I do not want to get dogmatic on any point
because we have people on this working group. You have to go a
bit with other people's views as well. The sense we have is there
is not a sensible option beyond an EU-wide harmonised cap and
allocation methodology. In other words, it is done across the
industries as a whole and this reflects the homogenous nature
of the industry. After all, it has been regulated on an international
basis for quite a long time, so no surprise there. The first answer
to your question is not dogmatic but our take is that we should
do this on an EU-wide basis. On the methods of allocation, we
certainly have a preference for measures of allocation that need
to be equitable but which provide incentives for reductions. If
you go through the standard list that I am sure you are familiar
with of grandfathering, bench marking, auctions, base line or
direct, there are some of those which recognise where people have
already made improvements which is a way of sending a signal to
the industry that we are going to give credit in future for people
who make improvements. There are issues about whether there are
mixes and the role of auction in mixes and so on. There is a lot
of detailed design stuff to be gone through but we are on the
case.
Mr Alexander: There are very divergent
voices within the industry. If you talk to Easyjet or British
Airways in terms of whether they want grandfathering as part of
the scheme, you get two rather different voices.
Mr Webb: The incentive for efficiency,
as you would expect from a Brit, is high.
Q705 Chairman: Given all the difficulties
which you have alluded to, including some resistance from airlines
in other countries and the fact that there are a lot of people
who expect this to be one round of this argument, it is likely
to be quite a long time before a system is in place which effectively
starts to curb the growth in emissions from aviation. Since one
of the intended effects of bringing aviation into the ETS is to
raise the cost of flying, would it not be a good idea to explore
ways of doing so more quickly so that we could give a more direct
and immediate market signal to what is one of the most challenging
areas in terms of carbon emissions?
Mr Alexander: The premise on which
your question is based, at least implicitly or explicitly, suggests
that it will be a significant period before we can see aviation
coming within the ETS. I would not wish to give encouragement
to those who are less than convinced of the case of aviation within
ETS by suggesting that if they hold out long enough, by default,
we will turn our focus to other measures. Frankly, we have a very
keen interest in persuading our other European partners and those
within industry who have concerns that this is the right thing
to do and that there will be continued focus and momentum on the
part of the British government to achieve it. It is one of those
issues—I say this bringing in my perspective as a former
Europe Minister—where I am not sure there has been a full
recognition within the United Kingdom as to how much of a leader
the UK has been on this issue. I think if our remarks were to
be raised in other European capitals as indicating that if they
wait long enough we will move towards other policy tools that
would be very regrettable because we are convinced that this does
offer a sensible, effective way to achieve the kinds of goals
that we want to see. Clearly in this discussion there is often
the issue raised of airline passenger duty and whether that would
provide a better alternative. As my predecessor has said, APD
seems to us a fairly blunt instrument. On a previous occasion
it has been suggested that if you were interested in terms of
incentives to the industry to effect the kinds of changes we want
to see, given the changes that have taken place in airline technology
and the fact that the fleet coming into Heathrow tends to be a
younger and therefore more fuel efficient fleet than other airports
across the world, one of the things that could be considered would
be whether you can incentivise the right kind of aircraft to be
landing in terms of your landing charges at Heathrow. We are not
actively participating in that discussion at the moment because
my main focus is on making sure that we see the progress we want
to see in terms of aviation in the ETS. Alistair's previous comments
give flavour to the fact that some of the discussion in terms
of the way forward does not most accurately recognise where there
is the opportunity to leverage the maximum environmental benefit.
Q706 Chairman: Unlike some EU countries,
we do have a significant domestic aviation sector and it would
not be giving any comfort to prospective back sliders on ETS at
EU level to raise their passenger duty for domestic flights and
perhaps to do so in a way that directly related that particular
tax to the emissions caused by particular flights. They would
be giving a very direct signal to passengers and indeed to airlines
and manufacturers. Is that something that you would consider,
given the problem area that aviation constitutes?
Mr Alexander: Firstly, the sustained
investment that we have made, for example, on the Manchester to
London journey time on the railways does manifest the fact that
you can by the kind of sustained investment we have made effect
changes in terms of passenger behaviour. The second point however
is a rather larger one. Frankly it does not matter in terms of
CO2 whether the CO2 is generated at Inverness
Airport or Charles de Gaulle in terms of the impact on the environment.
That is why, in terms of the design of the system, we believe
that it does demand a global response and that the logical place
to take that international response in the first instance is the
European Union. I would not want to be in a position again where,
in these detailed negotiations with other European partners, they
were able somehow to say, "Well, you have made unilateral
steps in the United Kingdom. Why do you care about this issue?"
when there is a broader argument to be secured and a consensus
to be achieved which is that we can at European level deal with
this more effectively than by individual actions by individual
countries. The third point to emphasise candidly, which I think
you drew out in an article in The House magazine, was the
point that the Prime Minister made. This is not easy political
terrain. If any of the Members of this Committee were invited
to go back to their constituencies and say, "I recommend
that our constituents stop flying" it is a very difficult
request to make of individual politicians. I think the right response
to that is to say, "What is the most effective policy framework
that we can have?" We believe that is bringing aviation within
the ETS. The right response for ministers is therefore to commit
focus and attention to trying to achieve that goal, which has
certainly been the approach both during the British presidency
and now under the Austrian presidency. I can give the Committee
an assurance that it will be a continued priority for me during
my time in the department.
Q707 Chairman: You do not believe
that Britain's influence internationally in our leadership role
which you say we have in this particular field would be strengthened
if it was seen we were tackling our purely domestic problems?
No emission from any foreign airport arises as a result of a domestic
flight. We do not fly in and out of Charles de Gaulle in going
from London to Glasgow. There is an opportunity therefore for
Britain to pioneer the way forward by having a tax on air passengers
which is specifically related to the emissions caused by their
choice of form of transport. On domestic flights there are always
alternatives. There are trains and, when the trains improve, they
become effective. Even driving most low emission cars is better
than going on an aeroplane. In terms of domestic choices, we could
introduce a policy which would be a pioneering policy. Would that
not greatly strengthen the influence which you believe we exercise
in international negotiations?
Mr Alexander: I am not convinced
that if we moved our focus from the progress that we have made
at a European level as recently as December, anticipating as soon
as the turn of this year the legislative proposals that will emerge
from the European Commission, that that would strengthen our ability
to seize the bigger prize. I believe that the biggest prize and
the biggest opportunity is to do this at European level. There
is learning in terms of allocation policy and on other points
which can be drawn from the general operation of the ETS. I believe
that we need at this stage to focus the momentum on trying to
secure the entry of aviation towards the ETS according to the
timescale that I have set out, 2008 or as soon thereafter as can
be achieved.
Q708 Chairman: American airlines
will be treated in exactly the same way as European ones for this
purpose?
Mr Alexander: If you were even
to read The Economist magazine this week, you would see
that there are fairly robust views being expressed not just by
individual American airlines but by some within the American administration
as to the impact of aviation's entry into the European emissions
trading scheme. These are issues which we will need to continue
to discuss.
Q709 Chairman: Does that mean the
robustness of the American airlines' views might mean they would
be treated leniently compared to the European airlines?
Mr Alexander: No. What I have
made clear is that there are continuing discussions with not just
European partners but there will no doubt also be discussions
with other international partners as we try and make sure that
we have a scheme which balances the need to make sure that people
are able to continue to travel within the European Union with
a more effective means of capturing the environmental consequences
of air travel.
Q710 Joan Walley: This exchange gets
us to the very heart of it, does it not? This Committee does recognise
certainly the leadership that the government has shown in trying
to get a European-wide solution and how public opinion can help
to make the case even faster to get that European-wide solution.
We do not want to detract from that in any way. You mentioned
earlier on the talks that you had when you were out in Sweden.
We were very impressed by some of the developments in Sweden where
they looked internally at things that they could do on domestic
air flights in advance of any European scheme. Without wanting
to compromise your negotiating position in terms of maintaining
that leadership role across Europe, given what the government
has said in respect of the Climate Change Programme which keeps
the government's options open and reserves the right for the government
to act alone or bilaterally at a later stage, if we do not get
the agreement European-wide, how will we know that the time is
right for plan B? Given that that is included in the Climate Change
Programme statement, what would plan B consist of if we reached
that stage because the one thing that we have not really reflected
on in our exchanges up until now has been the amount of time that
we have to start to deal with the emissions in terms of global
warming.
Mr Alexander: I suppose it is
inevitable that I bring to this conversation a perspective I gained
during the British presidency and from spending significant portions
of my life in rooms in Brussels negotiating with European partners.
In the Foreign Office I was never allowed to claim a victory in
Europe. The way to secure consensus on these kinds of policy matters
was not to countenance defeat at a critical point in the negotiations.
In that sense, notwithstanding the caveat you added at the beginning
of your question, saying without compromising our negotiating
position, I think it would be simply impossible at this particular
point, anticipating the European Commission's legislative proposals—we
are working very closely with the European Commission in terms
of the terms of those proposals—to at this stage suggest
that we should either unilaterally in terms of policy measures
that we would introduce in the United Kingdom or simply in terms
of giving comfort to those at an international level who do not
share our views with the same sense of speed and urgency, talk
about plan B. I genuinely think the way that you secure that victory
is to engage with your partners to continue the discussions. In
terms of the evidence I would bring to bear supporting that contention,
I would say look what we achieved during the British presidency.
It would be more difficult frankly for me to sustain that line
of argument but for the progress that we did make in the second
half of last year where we secured that consensus in the Environment
Council. That speaks to the potential that we have to maintain
the progress that has now been achieved and has continued within
the European Union. Let us see where the European Parliament ends
up in terms of its role next month. We have some very critical
negotiations and discussions to have with other European capitals
in the months ahead of December. I would not want to prejudice
those discussions today.
Q711 Joan Walley: You do acknowledge,
do you not, that the government has made it clear that it would
reserve that right to act alone or bilaterally if progress at
international level proves too slow? That has to be, if you like,
a fallback position.
Mr Alexander: Given where we are
in our negotiations with our European partners, I would not want
to give comfort to those who believe that if they simply sit it
out out of our back pocket we will produce either a unilateral
series of measures or alternatives, when I believe that the significant
prize, not just for the British government because it is our stated
position but in terms of all of us concerned with climate change,
would be to see the agreement at European level that we continue
and will continue to strive for.
Q712 Mr Stuart: This is slightly
surreal. You are tying us to the slow lane. Whoever is the slowest
in Europe we are absolutely tied to. You are suggesting that if
we take any action showing our determination to tackle this issue
at home somehow it undermines our efforts to do so internationally.
I would put to you that it is straight out of Yes, Minister.
It is clearly absurd. The idea that we will just stay there and
carry on and the longer we do it doubtless there will be more
investment in the policy so the more years we go on struggling
and failing—
Mr Alexander: We are not struggling
and failing. If we were struggling and failing, why did we have
the conclusions of the December Environmental Council that I quoted
earlier? If we were struggling and failing, why is it that the
European Commission is bringing forward proposals in terms of
its legislative proposals in December? I leave it to you to make
a judgment as to the European Union. The means by which you secure
progress is by engaging effectively with your European partners,
I believe, at critical points of negotiation. I return to the
substantive point: given the capacity of carbon molecules to find
their way round the world in a relatively short period of time,
it is not for me a matter of dogma or European policy that I advocate
this response. It seems to me to be the appropriate level at which
to address what is inherently a global challenge. We in the United
Kingdom account for about 2% of global emissions. I think there
are a billion cars on the road around the world and 60 million
cars produced every year. It is in that context that I think it
would be surreal, as you describe my answer, to suggest that one
country acting alone is a more sensible response to these challenges
than is working internationally with our partners.
Q713 Chairman: Would one way of showing
our keenness to work with our EU partners be to do what most of
them do and charge VAT on airline tickets?
Mr Alexander: It has been a longstanding
difference between ourselves and a number of European partners,
how to address the issue of VAT. I remember the very delicate
discussions that took place at the December European Council under
our presidency where President Chirac was advocating very strongly
that there should be a cut in VAT on restaurants. I cannot say
that that was a convincing argument to the British government,
the German government or to the other partners around the European
Council table. I am afraid I may disappoint the Committee again
but I do not appear today to announce a change in terms of our
fiscal policies in relation to VAT, income tax, car duty or any
other fiscal matter which will rightly be addressed by the Chancellor
at the time of the Budget.
Q714 Chairman: What reason do you
think he has for not wanting to charge VAT on airline tickets?
Mr Alexander: Chancellors, as
in all decisions in terms of fiscal policy, have to strike an
appropriate balance. That is the nature of the Budget judgment
that is made year on year. Of course there are environmental considerations
to be taken into account. There are social considerations in terms
of the appropriate funding of public services. There is consideration
to be given in terms of that general balance for the maintenance
of economic growth which we have managed now for a sustained period
during this government. It is inherent in the work that the Chancellor
does that he exercises that judgment at the time of the Budget.
Q715 Dr Turner: Quoting from the
Climate Change Programme, "we welcome recent airline initiatives
allowing customers to voluntarily calculate and offset emissions
from their flights." If carbon offsetting is such a good
idea and if it is effective, why are you not making it a compulsory
charge on all air tickets?
Mr Alexander: To read into that
statement, I do not think it reflects the fact, as I said in the
joint article that I referred to at the beginning of this session
with the Environment Secretary, David Miliband, it is not simply
a role for government or simply a role for private companies but
a role for private companies, for broader civil society and for
individuals and government as well. Our challenge is to set the
framework. We exercise that judgment and continue to reflect upon
where that framework should lie. It seems to me, given that philosophical
view that this is not simply a task for government but a task
for individual companies and for individuals as well, it is perfectly
reasonable to acknowledge the efforts that are being made, either
by individuals or indeed by individual companies to address the
challenges that we all face.
Q716 Dr Turner: There seems to be
very little uptake of this facility at the moment. Certainly it
is vanishingly small as far as British Airways are concerned,
they told us. The government is happily taking this up for all
government flights. They are generally by British Airways as a
matter of policy and British Airways seem to have a different
methodology for calculating the emissions and the costs of a flight
from others, which is rather lower. Is the government being so
good in offsetting on all its flights if BA are doing it at a
cut rate?
Mr Alexander: Let me clarify a
factual point that, as a matter of policy, ministers fly with
British Airways. There may have been occasions during my time
in the Foreign Office when I wished that was the case but in fact
value for money is one of the key considerations. When I was the
Minister responsible for south and south east Asia, as a matter
of course, I was travelling on Emirates flights and other flights
depending on the particular circumstances. It seems to me curious
to suggest that our advocacy of this and the fact that on 1 April,
as a government, we adopted this position that all official and
ministerial central government air travel will be offset through
the government carbon offset fund differs from British Airways
as being evidence that either British Airways is right or indeed
that the government is wrong. The two schemes have been designed
separately. As I understand it, we are out to tender at the moment
across government in terms of how we can secure the offset most
effectively. I welcome the fact, and believe it reflects a seriousness
of intent on the part of the government, that we have taken that
step, notwithstanding that there may not be that many British
Airways customers at this stage who have accepted a similar suggestion.
Emily Thornberry: The series of intent
of British Airways we have seen evidence of and they could not
even tell us that it was 1% of journeys that are offset. They
did not come up on the website. It is impossible to find them.
Nick has tried to carbon offset his flights through British Airways
and they are just taking the mickey. To hear that they are offsetting
it at a cheaper rate, the cheapest rates they can get away with
even on ones that they do not do, they are taking the mickey and
it is a real shame.
Q717 Dr Turner: It only cost 50p
for our Swedish trip.
Mr Alexander: I have spent the
last few weeks becoming familiar with the work of the Department
for Transport. I am glad to say that I sit here today representing
the Department for Transport. If you wish to direct questions
to Willie Walsh, I am sure you know where he works, just next
to Heathrow.
Mr Webb: We have set up a scheme
for all official ministerial and government air travel. We think
it will offset around 100,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum
for three years and we will then have another look at it. In terms
of management, we obviously need to achieve a certified emission
reduction and we are looking at the most likely outcome which
is a scheme in South Africa. We need someone to go and manage
this for us properly. It is not an expertise that we have within
the department. Our colleagues in DFID know about it. On the level,
what we have done within government is to reflect the issue that
carbon is not the whole story on emissions, particularly in the
aviation context. I suspect this Committee knows a lot about this.
We decided to adopt at least provisionally, initially, a multiplier
of two on the carbon to reflect the other elements in greenhouse
gases to recognise that point. In terms of flights, anybody who
has a dedicated budget is entitled to go to any airline they like.
People do very interesting experiments about buying very cheap
tickets and having to cancel them because their meeting changes,
doing ones over six months and working out that they do very well
on low cost airlines compared to traditional bookings.
Q718 Mr Stuart: The 2006 Climate
Change Programme makes no mention of shifting freight from road
to water. I wonder if you could explain why that is what steps
you are taking to encourage this shift?
Mr Alexander: We believe that
there is a case for greater use of regional ports not least to
reduce overland transport of material, but this will be considered
as part of the ports policy review which I authorised and I think
was launched by Stephen Ladyman, my ministerial colleague, within
days of my arrival in the department. In the last five years the
DfT has awarded grants of some £30 million for water freight
schemes, only 60% of the available budget, because of the lack
of viable schemes being put forward by the industry. It is not
that there has not been either an allocation of resources or a
willingness to commit those resources within the department. These
are all issues which we can consider as part of the ports policy
review.
Q719 Mr Stuart: In 2003 international
shipping from UK ports was responsible for emissions of 1.9 million
tonnes of carbon and yet, just like emissions from international
aviation, these do not show up on our domestic inventory and are
specifically excluded from Kyoto. What is the government doing
about international shipping emissions and are you going to adopt
binding targets for them? Will you seek in post 2012 negotiations
to see aviation and shipping brought into each country's measurements
of carbon?
Mr Alexander: The discussions
in terms of post-2012 are beginning, taking forward the work that
Margaret Beckett achieved at the climate change conference in
November of last year, if I recollect, in Montreal. In terms of
shipping, it is again inherent in the nature of ships that if
you were to instigate a national regime of particularly stringent
targets it would be available to ship owners to reflag their vessels
and to move to another environment which was less burdensome in
their view in terms of the environmental impacts. As a consequence
of that, we have sought to play a key role in trying to persuade
all states within the International Maritime Organisation to play
an equal part in limiting CO2 emissions. As recently
as 2003 the UK was active in the IMO's Marine Environment Protection
Committee when we began to address CO2 emissions for
international shipping. Progress, frankly, has not been smooth.
I have talked again to officials about this in anticipation of
discussions on it today, because all states are not convinced
of the case of taking international action in limiting CO2
emissions from international shipping. We have however worked
very closely with industry to develop a paper to stimulate debate
on market based approaches that could work given the distinctive
nature of the marine market. As recently as March 2006, we as
a government presented a paper to the MEPC. Again, the more I
looked into this matter, the more I was struck by the fact that,
notwithstanding the inherent difficulties in the shipping market,
the British government was pushing the case and advancing ideas
in terms of how we could make progress.
| 
