Mr.
Weir: I agree with much of what has been said by the hon.
Members for Cheltenham and for Bury, North and I will support the new
clause if it is pressed to a Division. Much has been made in Committee
about the 60 per cent. target and the views of the Royal Commission for
Environmental Pollution, which is the argument for why the target
should be included in the Bill. It is worth remembering, however, that
that target assumed the inclusion of both aviation and shipping, and
that if they are not to be included, the target should be higher. It is
the question of the target that really concerns me.
The inclusion
of aviation and shipping is, of course, contentious. We are told that
the proportion of emissions is relatively small at 7.6 per cent, but it
is rising rapidly and, as has already been said, no account is taken of
the fact that aircraft release emissions at high altitude. I draw hon.
Members’ attention to the Government’s final impact
assessment, which states at paragraph
3.2.41: “Emissions
of greenhouse gases from international aviation and shipping represent
an increasing proportion of total global greenhouse gas emissions.
Emissions from aviation in particular are increasing at a faster rate
than emissions from other
sectors.” The
point that concerns me, however, is the passage in paragraph 3.2.42
that
states: “If
these emissions were to be included, the Government may wish to revisit
the level of the targets to ensure they remain both ambitious and
achievable, balancing the need to reduce emissions with the need to
avoid excessive economic or social cost, and consistent with
international
progress.” I
would not necessarily argue with that, but it brings me back to a point
that I made when speaking to several other clauses: we are in danger of
constantly revising the target, whether it be 60 per cent. or 80 per
cent. On the basis of that statement, if the Government get more
information and decide to include aviation and shipping, they may alter
the
target. 5.15
pm
As I have
made clear, my concern is that we are setting a target that is supposed
to be for 2050, which is a long way away. It will be the guiding light
to where we need to go. I have referred to the need to vary carbon
budgets within that period—that is perfectly sensible—but
I am concerned that in several places in the Bill there is provision
for the long-term target to be altered. We have it again in this
clause.
It
would seem much more sensible to set a target now that includes
aviation and shipping, and that will not need to be altered in the
future. If we start to alter the target, we risk alienating the public,
who will become cynical if politicians continually change it. The
public will think that they are changing it to suit their own ends
rather than as a serious attempt to tackle climate
change. I
appreciate what the Minister says about the complexities of including
aviation and shipping. There is the further complexity of where the
ships come from and where they are flagged, which may be another
consideration. I do not think that there is any chance in the near
future of reaching an international agreement that would be much more
preferable. Rather than the UK being seen as pressing ahead and trying
to impose something on the international community, I suggest that
including aviation and shipping would, in fact, show leadership in
pushing forward the
issue. There
is a real chance of drift. In four or five years, the Government,
whoever they may be, might come back and say, “We cannot quite
manage it,” and the target will drift for another few years. It
could take a long time for things to come to any sort of fruition, and,
again, there is the danger of the overall target being
reduced. I
would argue most strongly that we need to deal with the matter quickly
and to include aviation and shipping in the target that we set. The
hon. Member for Bury, North suggested that we have a report from the
Climate Change Committee before Third Reading. I suggest that it be
asked to consider this
point. I
notice that in the briefs prepared for this Committee, and even in the
Government’s final impact assessment, that there are various
suggestions on how to calculate the target. I was struck by the fact
that the assessment quoted a Department for Transport report that
identified the need to increase the 60 per cent. target by 4 per cent.
on the assumption that aviation was included in the European Union
emission trading scheme. That should be taken into account and, at the
very least, added to the initial
target. I
echo the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham that industry
needs a level playing field. Many industries will find it hard to meet
the reduction targets that we will ask them to meet. I shall not repeat
what I said about the ETS in an intervention, but there is a real
danger of slippage if we allow one or two industries not to be included
in the long-term, overall target that is an important part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gummer: I shall be brief. First, I declare an interest. My
business helps a company that is bringing forward the latest advances
in modern ships to operate in an effective and environmental
way. May
I suggest that there is a good reason, which has not so far been
mentioned, for the content of the new clause? For precisely the reasons
that the Minister gave, it would be of huge help if the Government
sought to find what would be the best way for them out of the problems
that this complex matter creates. In other words, part of the reason
why we find it so difficult to get an agreement is because everybody
uses precisely the arguments that the Minister used. I use them myself.
They are good arguments because they are true—it is not that we
are inventing things. This is a complicated matter.
There would
thus be a huge advantage if the British set an example by saying what
they would do along those lines. Far from embarrassing our colleagues,
that would begin to make people able to discuss the real issue, which
is not whether, but how. Unless there is a “how” on the
table, we shall go on discussing the matter vaguely and saying,
“Oh yes, of course we should do this, but it is very
difficult.” If we at least create a matrix that gives some basis
for discussion about such issues, we will have moved on significantly,
and rather than making the problem more difficult, we will have made it
easier.
I agree with
the amendment, because it puts the Government in the right position and
sets an example. If the Minister finds it impossible to accept the
amendment and, for reasons that I cannot imagine, the hon. Member for
Bury, North does not press the new clause to a Division—that has
occasionally happened before, so I must take it into account—it
would help the Committee hugely if the Minister committed himself to
that preparation and said that even if the Government did not bring it
forward, they would bring the facts forward, show the ways in which
such a thing might be done, illustrate and present it publicly, and
start now so that when they get to the date on which they are forced to
do something, at least Britain will have gone down all the alleyways
and byways and shown what might be done to bring that together. That
would bring us significantly forward from where we are at the
moment. Secondly,
I hope that the Minister might be prepared to say that it is important
for us to stop treating aviation and shipping as if they were two
industries that have a God-given right to be treated separately. The
hon. Member for Angus has done the Committee a valuable service by
making that key point. I am tired of the aviation industry suggesting
that it must somehow be treated separately because the public will not
accept the same treatment for aviation as they accept elsewhere. That
is not on. We must treat everything from the point of view of climate
change and what makes a difference. If aviation is, as it seems, not
only increasing but particularly damaging, I am afraid that it must be
treated alongside the rest of industry. If, after deciding that, the
Government conclude that for a temporary period particular arrangements
must pertain, at least they would do so within a proper comparable
context. If they never get to the point of considering that, those
industries are left out and begin to believe that they will go on being
able to defend their being left
out. Thirdly,
and briefly, there is a huge amount of movement in the shipping
industry. Some of the best shippers want to make the best of a very
good case and are thinking seriously about better engines, better fuel,
and setting higher standards. The Government could encourage that by
showing that they were serious about rewarding people, which is what
will happen if shipping is brought within the system. That would help a
great deal, and I hope that it would, importantly, enable us to bring
forward something else, which I shall set
out. I
have always been suspicious about the measurement of steaming time. I
know that in Southampton and elsewhere many shipowners talk about the
cost of carrying goods further round the coast. It is always cheaper to
unload them and carry them by road. If we concentrate on carbon
emissions, reduce them and start to charge for them properly, we may
find that the old figures
change and that it may be more sensible to have two
stops because of the reality of the impact of the carbon emissions of
sea-going craft. I do not know that, but until the Government do the
work, none of us will
know. I
commend the new clause to the Committee. I would love it to be put to
the Committee because, were it to be pressed by those who proposed it,
it would be accepted. If it is not pressed, it will not be accepted,
and I hope that, as a secondary course, the Government might be
prepared to go down the route that I have
suggested.
Mr.
Woolas: This has been an important debate. I pick up a
strong feeling from the Committee that backs up a strong feeling from
the other place and, I suspect, the Second Reading debate, about the
desirability of including aviation and shipping within the
emissions.
Joan
Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) (Lab): I remind my hon.
Friend that there was a very strong recommendation from the
Environmental Audit Committee on this subject. I hope that he will take
that into account.
Mr.
Woolas: My hon. Friend is a member of that Committee and
she is right to remind me about it. Let me bring us more down to earth.
We are debating how we can account for aviation and shipping emissions
and I will run through the answers to the questions.
First, I will
clarify the point made about reporting emissions under UN guidance. The
UK, along with all other signatories to the UNFCCC, is required to
report on emissions from sales of aviation and shipping bunker
fuels—crudely put, that means fuels that are sold or purchased
in the UK. On a global level, it does not matter where the fuels are
sold. We get a figure of what the global emissions are and that is what
matters. Suffice to say, the data are not completely robust. I point no
fingers at any particular country, but hon. Members will understand
what I mean.
The UNFCCC
permits a range of methodologies for calculating those sales on a
sliding scale of provision. However, that method of allocating
emissions is not totally reliable, as planes and ships routinely tanker
fuel from countries with lower fuel prices. That is particularly a
problem with respect to shipping. Ships on international routes have a
significant degree of choice about where they take on fuel. They will
generally do so where the fuel can be obtained for the best price, and
that includes tankers that are moored in international waters.
Therefore, any attempt to calculate the UK’s shipping emissions
on the basis of UK bunker fuel sales will significantly underestimate
our contribution and overestimate that of other countries. My point is
that I am trying to capture more than I would have to if I took the
purest stance.
Similarly,
with aviation, it is not apparent how such measures would work
alongside the already inclusive nature of aviation in the European
Union ETS. It is not clear how two systems could be operated alongside
each other, with one system allocating emissions to countries on the
basis of fuel sold, and the other allocating emissions and carbon units
to airlines on the basis of which country they were based in. There are
obvious risks of double counting or a system that is over-complex and
burdensome. That is why, when the European Union ETS rules are
finalised, we will ask the Committee on Climate Change for its advice
on methodology.
The first
question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North was about
why we cannot publish the figures for aviation and shipping emissions
alongside the carbon budgets. He makes a good point. We already report
those figures to Parliament, and they are published each year, as is
required under the Kyoto
agreement. A
number of questions were asked by the hon. Member for Bexhill and
Battle, who made the valid point that industry needs certainty that
emissions will be included within five years. I agree with his premise,
but I say that committing now to including emissions as suggested would
not provide certainty, but quite the reverse. There would be no
certainty about how we would define the UK’s share of emissions
or what the implications would be. There would be no certainty about
the effect on aviation. Let me repeat that the Bill is not about
measures to address emissions, but how we account for
them. 5.30
pm
Martin
Horwood: I am puzzled by the Minister’s remarks. As
both Select Committees pointed out, there is already a methodology for
accounting for international emissions from aviation and shipping. Both
Select Committees suggested simply taking the total and using it as the
interim measure. The National Audit Office also has a methodology for
calculating exact emissions from aircraft on the domestic front that is
based on the nature of the aircraft and the pattern of the flight,
rather than on trying to work out where every ounce of fuel came from.
Is not the Minister making a bit of a meal of
it?
Mr.
Woolas: I am not making a meal of it. I am simply pointing
out that of course there are
methodologies.
Martin
Horwood: You are using them
already.
Mr.
Woolas: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman must
accept that in the fight to cap global emissions, one has to have a
global agreement. Entering into a methodology now would have
significant impact on our carbon budgeting, and UK decisions in policy
would not be part of an international agreement. We could end up not
only cutting off our nose to spite our face, but—if I can extend
the metaphor—cutting off the nose of global emissions, to spite
that. That is my simple point. I am not trying to wriggle out of this.
The hon. Gentleman made that point on Second Reading, from both a
standing and a sedentary position. With respect, the UN simply provides
a method, not an agreed method. That method is hotly contested by
countries around the
world.
Mr.
Woolas: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he
wishes to push that important
point.
Martin
Horwood: The last time that I looked, the Kyoto protocol
was an international agreement. Will the Minister tell the Committee
whether the methodology that we used to calculate our memo item on
Kyoto is significantly different from that of any other
country?
| 
