Webb, Swinson, Howarth and Hemming quiz Ruddock on the Climate Change Bill

• [Oct 28]: Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Energy and Climate Change; Northavon, Liberal Democrat): There is a danger that we will get caught up in technical minutiae and lose sight of the big picture.

The Minister has just said that it is unlikely that we will be able to reduce aviation emissions by 80 per cent. by 2050, so because we will not get tough on aviation, the rest of the economy will have to take the hit on carbon. Surely it is time that policies such as the expansion of Stansted and Heathrow came to the top of the Government's agenda, as we might then stand a better chance.

Joan Ruddock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the Government of just ignoring the issue. As he must know, we have been very active within the EU in ensuring that those emissions become part of the European trading scheme. That is the way we will deal with those emissions in the first instance. We hope, in the long term, that we shall do so through some global agreement. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, if within a trading agreement some sectors are allowed to grow and as a consequence some cannot grow so much, that is a principle of trading. The cap that is set, which repeatedly goes down, will ensure that overall emissions are reduced. We have to have that in sight; it is the long-term goal. The bigger picture is to get an 80 per cent. reduction by 2050.

• . . Jo Swinson (Shadow Minister, Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs; East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): May I draw the Minister back to her remarks about the reporting on different sectors? She has mentioned the publication that the Government intend to produce on aviation emissions, but she has not so far said what publication will be produced on shipping emissions. Surely there is sometimes a danger that aviation is focused on as the real problem, when in fact emissions from shipping are considerable and are predicted to as much as treble by 2050 if left unchecked.

Joan Ruddock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): I understand the hon. Lady's point, and I shall come on to that eventually. The reason why aviation gets so much attention is that most of us have direct experience of flying, while fewer of us have experience of shipping. I shall explain what we are doing about shipping, too.

• . . David Howarth (Shadow Solicitor General, Ministry of Justice; Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): The Minister said that there was no agreed methodology, and that has been the argument all along, right back to the Joint Committee that considered the draft Bill. However, does she agree that any methodology that we adopt, even unilaterally, is sure to be closer to the end result than doing nothing would be? If we adopt a reasonable methodology now, we will have a smaller adjustment to make in the future.

Joan Ruddock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): If I were allowed to make some progress with my speech, I might be able to make the counter-argument. However, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point because, although we could adopt a methodology now, it might have various undesirable effects, not least in the international negotiations.

• . . David Howarth (Shadow Solicitor General, Ministry of Justice; Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): I thank the Minister for giving way, perhaps at the right part of her speech now. Is it not the case that if we in the UK take the lead, we will shape the international debate and push the final solution of the problem to a position closer to what is in our interests, rather than in other countries' interests, whereas if we leave the negotiations to others, we will not do that?

Joan Ruddock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of leaving the negotiations to others. We are right there in the forefront of the negotiations. It is the UK Government who pushed for the inclusion of international aviation and shipping emissions in the EU trading scheme. We succeeded in persuading other member states that that should be done, and it will be done. Adopting a measure in the Bill that could be completely out of line, as the amendments suggest, with what we are negotiating in Europe is obviously the wrong thing to do.

The questions concerning shipping emissions are even more complex. If we were to include shipping emissions in any of the existing agreements or future agreements such as global agreements, we would have even more problems than we clearly have with airlines. I have outlined how we might deal with aviation through the European trading scheme, but the difficulty with ships is that they can go for many weeks without refuelling, and can take on fuel from tankers in international waters. If we based our calculations only on fuel that has been sold in the UK, it would appear that shipping emissions declined over the past 10 years and then began to rise again. However, we know that that is not the case. We know that shipping has continued to increase, so we must assume that the emissions have increased as well. Clearly, relying on bunker fuels is not the answer.

• . . John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley, Liberal Democrat): I am slightly confused about this issue. Last Monday, the Prime Minister said that we needed a constantly rising supply of oil, notwithstanding the use of renewables. Does the Minister have any idea of whether our oil consumption is expected to fall over time-whether or not aviation and shipping are included-and in which year would we first see a fall?

Joan Ruddock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): I shall not speculate on the extraneous matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

The central point of what Lord Turner actually said was that policies are needed to constrain aviation and shipping emissions, but-despite these-it is unlikely that emissions in these sectors will be reduced by 80 per cent. in 2050. The consequence is that more effort is likely to be required from those sectors covered by the Bill. Government amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 50 are consequential to Government new clause 15, and ensure that appropriate references are made throughout the Bill to the proposed new clause.

Amendment No. 69 and new clause 14 would both require the Government to publish regular projections for emissions from international aviation and shipping. We already publish projections of future CO2 emissions for international flights from UK airports and intend to continue to do so. The last reports were published in 2003, 2004 and 2007. I am happy to commit the Government to publish at least one forecast of international aviation emissions for each budgetary period sufficient to inform decisions on setting carbon budgets. Publishing projections of aviation emissions any more frequently would not deliver any benefits, as the long term drivers of the forecasts do not change significantly on an annual basis.