I have a statement to make. I have looked into the matter that was raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on Thursday. The position is, as he said, that the licence for the use of loudhailers has run out, and I have caused that to be drawn to the attention of Westminster council.

As the hon. Gentleman also said, legislation governing this matter, and the powers needed by the police to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament, are still being considered. I would expect consultation by the Government with myself and with the House authorities. I hope that the concerns of Members, staff and others who come here—in terms of both access to the building and disturbance from noise—will have been duly taken into account when the legislative proposals are put before the House.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the classification of gamma-butyrolactone as a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and for connected purposes.

I know from conversations with the Roofie Foundation, Europe’s only drug-assisted rape agency, that there are date rape victims in my constituency, and many other Members—indeed, far too many—will find that the same applies in their constituencies.

The Government have already taken firm action to tackle date rape. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 formally acknowledged it as a crime, and made it an offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison to administer any stupefying substance with the intent of overpowering the victim in order to engage him or her in sexual activity. Over the past few years, the Government have also outlawed the most commonly used date-rape drugs. I refer in particular to ketamine, Rohypnol and gamma-hydroxybutyric acid. I welcome that action, and urge the Government to continue in the same vein with gamma-butyrolactone, or GBL as it is more commonly known. GBL is an industrial solvent, and is a common component in cleaning products. Although it does have legitimate uses, it is increasingly being used to facilitate date rape, and as a recreational drug. In fact, as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs points out, there is evidence that it is precisely because GHB was outlawed that we have seen an increase in the use of GBL, with users switching to an almost identical, but entirely legal, alternative. Indeed, as GHB has already been banned and GBL turns into GHB on ingestion, there is already an a priori case for extending that ban to GBL.

The precise effects of GBL will, of course, vary according to the user and the dose taken, but it is likely to leave the victim confused, dazed, drowsy, and even unconscious, thereby rendering them incapable of resisting sexual advances. These effects may occur within as little as 15 minutes, and can last for up to 8 hours. It is also a popular choice of drug because it is so difficult to spot. When dissolved in soft drinks, beers and spirits, it is colourless, odourless, invisible and indiscernible in taste. GBL is undetectable in blood and urine after 10 to 12 hours. Not only is it, therefore, difficult for the victim to spot, but it is difficult to trace once the attack has taken place.

It is precisely because it is so difficult to prosecute for date rape and secure convictions that the law needs to be used to prevent drugs such as GBL from being available. At present, the police have no power to confiscate GBL, and clubs cannot say to a customer, “We know that liquid is illegal and we are calling the police”. They can act only when an offence involving GBL has been committed, but, unfortunately, this is often too late—not only too late in terms of the chances of securing a conviction, but, more importantly, too late for the women themselves.

Although my remarks today will focus on the dangers of GBL when used in the commission of date rape, its use is by no means limited to that. It is also widely used as a recreational drug, particularly on the clubbing scene, where it is considered a kind of cheaper liquid ecstasy. Although it can induce feelings of euphoria and disinhibition, its effects are most certainly not benign, and it has been implicated in two deaths in the past month alone. Such loss of life is avoidable, and if the Government are serious about tackling date rape, as I believe they have shown themselves to be, it is essential that this loophole is closed as a matter of urgency.

In fact, the Government accept that case. In 2006, the Home Office asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—the independent body whose role is to advise Government on drug control in the UK—to look into GBL, and its response was unambiguous: GBL should be brought under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and classified as a class C drug. Such a proposal, moreover, commands cross-party support; my Bill has sponsors from across the House. It also has the backing of the experts in this area; my Bill is supported by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Roofie Foundation and nightclubs themselves. It also enjoys popular support, as evidenced by the number of people who have signed up to the petition launched by Cosmopolitan magazine. However, despite the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, two years on GBL is still perfectly legal.

The question therefore is not why GBL should be prohibited, but why GBL has not already been outlawed. My fear is that GHB and GBL are not only chemically similar, but that they will follow a similarly protracted route to prohibition. It was in the early 1990s that people first became aware of GHB, and in particular of its use in cases of date rape, but it was not outlawed until 2003; in other words, that took a decade, and a plethora of reports and consultations, all of which confirmed that GHB should be a controlled substance.

Two years have already passed since the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs first recommended GBL’s prohibition, and it is still perfectly legal to supply GBL. It is quick and straightforward and frighteningly easy to buy GBL, particularly online. In addition, as the recent report in Cosmopolitan highlighted, there are no checks or controls on its purchase. At £25 for 250 ml, it is also extremely cheap, with an active dose costing somewhere in the region of 8p. Meanwhile, an untold number of women are put at risk.

As I understand it, the principal obstacle blocking the prohibition of GBL is its legitimate use, particularly in the manufacturing and chemical industries. I do not seek to deny that GBL has legitimate uses, and I accept that it is widely used as an industrial solvent. What I find difficult to believe, however, is that an industrial solvent being sold in bottles of 250 ml to private citizens in central London, with same-day delivery, is actually being used for legitimate industrial purposes.

What needs to happen, and what my Bill provides for, is an end to the open market for GBL. At the moment anyone can buy it for any purpose, without having to specify that purpose. My Bill would make GBL a controlled substance under the 1971 Act, but that would not mean that it could not be used for legitimate purposes. All that would be required of those who needed GBL for legitimate purposes would be to make an application to the relevant authorities. The provisions for that are contained in the 1971 Act itself. That is precisely how GBL is managed in the United States, which has classified it as a schedule 1 drug without precipitating the collapse of its chemical industry. That GBL has legitimate uses is no excuse for inaction.

Yesterday, I spoke to a young woman, 22 years of age and a victim of these substances. Her drink was spiked and she suffered a 25-minute seizure. It was only thanks to the skill of the doctors and nurses who treated her that she survived at all. Her health is poor and she now needs to use a wheelchair. The consequences for her will last a lifetime.

The case for the prohibition of GBL is clear. It would protect women without putting unnecessary burdens on its legitimate use. I only hope that we address this problem now, before any more victims without redress are created.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Joan Ryan, Bob Spink, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Lee Scott, David Cairns, Mr. John Leech, Mr. Mike Hancock, Siobhain McDonagh, Liz Blackman and Julie Morgan.

Gamma-Butyrolactone (prohibition)

Joan Ryan accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the classification of gamma-butyrolactone as a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 156].

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 14—International aviation and shipping emissions

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report including—

(a) a projection of the level of emissions he expects to arise from international aviation and shipping which are the result of UK economic activity,

(b) an explanation of the methodology used to make this emissions projection, and

(c) the way in which any carbon budgets have been adjusted to take account of such projections.

(2) When making the above projection, the Secretary of State shall have regard to international carbon reporting practice.

(3) The projection shall cover any year for which a carbon budget has been set, and may include any other years that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.’.

Amendment No. 68, in clause 10, page 6, line 26, at end insert—

‘(i) the emission of greenhouse gases from international aviation or international shipping that the Secretary of State expects to arise during the budget period, as reported pursuant to section 15(5A).’.

Amendment No. 72, page 6, line 26, at end insert—

‘(i) the emissions of greenhouse gases from international aviation or international shipping that the Secretary of State expects to arise during the budget period.’.

Amendment No. 69, in clause 27, page 15, line 24, at end insert—

‘(5A) If emissions of a greenhouse gas from international aviation or international shipping are not required to be included in the statement by virtue of subsection (2), it must state the level of such emissions that the Secretary of State expects he will have to report in accordance with international carbon reporting practice for each budget period for which a budget has been set.’.

Government amendment No. 36.

Amendment No. 3, in clause 29, page 16, line 9, leave out out from ‘Kingdom’ to end of line 13.

Government amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 50.

Before setting out my reasons for tabling the new clause, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who led on all the earlier stages of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who led the discussions in Cabinet.

International aviation and shipping have long been contentious issues in relation to climate change and the subject of much Back-Bench interest, as illustrated by the huge support for the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths). The Government agree that action to reduce emissions from international aviation and shipping will be vital to global efforts to tackle climate change, which is why we are taking forward a range of measures to reduce the impact of international aviation and shipping on the environment.

Discussions on including international aviation and shipping in a post-2012 regime under the Kyoto principle have begun, and the UK is actively lobbying for support within the international community. Following pressure from the UK, legislation to include aviation in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has been signed off in Europe, and it is expected to save about 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020. We are also working with the International Civil Aviation Organisation on international aviation and climate change to try to reach agreement on targets that will drive increased action on emissions in the aviation sector. We continue to press for an international emissions trading scheme for the maritime sector under the International Maritime Organisation.

The Government recognise the need to give serious consideration to how emissions from international aviation and shipping are approached in the Climate Change Bill. That is why we agreed to the approach proposed by the other place: that either those emissions should be included in the Bill’s targets and budgets within five years of Royal Assent or an explanation should be laid before Parliament stating why that has not been done. I want to attach as much certainty and transparency as possible to this requirement, and amendment No. 36 would do exactly that. It would change the deadline for inclusion or explanation from within five years to 31 December 2012. That definite date is nearly a year sooner than what is currently provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, in response to the views of the shadow Committee on Climate Change, new clause 15 places a new duty on the committee to advise the Secretary of State on the consequences of including emissions from international aviation and emissions from international shipping in the targets and budgets. The committee would be required to provide that advice at the same time as it provides its advice on each carbon budget. That requirement would begin in 2011, when the committee advises on the level of the 2023 to 2027 budget, and would apply every time it advises on carbon budgets thereafter. The duty would remain in place to the extent that emissions from international aviation and shipping were not included within the Bill’s targets. If emissions from international aviation were included in the future, the committee would still be under a duty to provide advice on international shipping emissions, but if, at some point, all emissions were included, the advice duty would no longer apply.

Would the Minister care to comment on a problem that could easily arise if, on the one hand, the committee has a legal duty to give effect to the provisions that she has mentioned and, on the other, clause 6 gives the Secretary of State a power to amend in the light of European law? What would happen if European law said one thing and the committee, which had a duty to give advice to the Secretary of State, said another? Which would prevail?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has some difficulty with European law, but I assure him that the committee would undoubtedly make proposals that would be consistent with European law.

Could the Minister help the House by telling us what the Government are doing to further these discussions, particularly in respect of shipping? Some indication has been given, particularly by the Danes, that we might not have been as advanced as some other countries in trying to find a suitable way to handle the difficult issue of shipping emissions. Can she assure the House that the Government will lead on this matter? The UK is historically a shipping country, so we would like to see that happen.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about how important it is for the UK to be in the lead. I do not know what the Danish opinion of us is, but there is competition between our countries at times, not least in respect of offshore wind. I understand that we have been very active in the International Maritime Organisation, that we have made proposals and that we have made funds available to assist in this process. We want to do our best, and I take the right hon. Gentleman’s comments seriously.

I was explaining how the duty would cease to exist if all the emissions were included in an international agreement. The shadow committee has been considering this question in some depth. Lord Turner’s recent letter to the Secretary of State gave his view that

“the scope of the Climate Change Bill should not be extended to include international aviation and shipping”.

His reason was that it was

“not clear how international shipping emissions could be sensibly included in UK budgets”.

He added that although

“there are methodologies that could sensibly allocate emissions to the UK level (e.g. bunker fuels), these differ from the methodology that has been proposed for entry of aviation into EU ETS. We do not believe that the EU ETS methodology is an appropriate basis for inclusion of international aviation in UK”.

Did not Lord Turner also say that aviation and shipping should be included in the 80 per cent. target? If they are not to be included in the budget, how will that be reflected in the 80 per cent. target, and what will be the impact of that?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in that Lord Turner made reference to the 80 per cent. target and to shipping and aviation emissions, but there has been considerable misunderstanding on this point. I will explain precisely what he has said and how we have responded positively to that.

Does the Minister agree that Lord Turner’s assessment is for the short term and, as he goes on to say, we need to look at this important issue in the long term, as it needs a deliberate policy?

It is apparent to all of us that we have to have short-term solutions and answers to the problems of climate change, and we also always have to plan for the long term. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Do we have to be so pessimistic about the contribution that aviation could make to the trading scheme? In the foreseeable future, other technologies may come along. For example, Loughborough university is looking at a variety of ways of replacing aviation fuels. Will the Minister try to ensure that there is some flexibility to allow those technologies to come forward to help to reduce the figure for aviation?

I was, of course, paraphrasing what Lord Turner had said. It was not my personal view that emissions from aviation might continue to grow and could not be reduced by 80 per cent. by 2050. We can be optimistic, can we not? My hon. Friend makes a good point—there is new technology and we are very supportive of that. We know that new aircraft are producing lower emissions than existing ones. Much can be done in that field, although I am sure that much more will eventually have to be done, too.

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.

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.

The Climate Change Bill has been used as an example of British leadership in the field of climate change, and quite rightly so. Britain is a leading maritime nation, too. I believe that the shipping industry is also looking for a lead from the British Government, which at the moment it is not getting. Ships being ordered today have a 30-year life, so that takes us three quarters of the way to 2050. If there is no sign of urgency about the inclusion of maritime emissions in the British Government’s approach, that will be an unfortunate missed opportunity. The Chamber of Shipping gave evidence to the Select Committee on Environmental Audit this morning and made the point that its members are looking to the Government for some suggestions about how maritime emissions might be counted and included.

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me in that he was present in his Committee meeting this morning and I was not. However, we will investigate all options for reducing emissions from international and domestic shipping. That includes considering improved technology and better operator practices, which, as I am sure he is aware, can make a considerable difference. We also support the development of a global emissions trading scheme through the International Maritime Organisation. We have said clearly that should progress within the IMO prove too slow, we will consider other options, including those proposed at an EU level, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. That includes investigating the feasibility of including shipping emissions in the EU ETS. We are not at all inactive on those issues, but the fact is that they are extremely difficult to deal with.

Let me take the Minister back to a technical minutia. Is she convinced that the methodologies for measuring emissions, particularly on the international scale, will be robust enough in the longer term?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman may know a little more about the technical minutiae of this matter than I do, but the Government are very conscious of the problem. We are always in discussions and seeking to improve the methodologies, but the fact that there is no agreed methodology at the moment means that we would face difficulties if we followed some of the amendments and simply included the present levels of emissions.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and the whole House will welcome the direction in which the Government are moving on this matter. I was interested to hear her say that the reason for the much greater focus on aviation than on shipping was that we tend to fly. That may be true, but it had never occurred to me. Does she agree that we in this country are still making far too many short flights—for example, from Edinburgh to Manchester? Clearly, the way forward must be to put much more investment into the railway, and to ensure—not necessarily through taxation, but by some other means—that there are not so many flights over short distances within the UK.

I have, dare I say it, some sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says. The Department for Transport is developing a climate change strategy of its own and, as I said earlier, we are clear that a growth in emissions in one sector of the economy will eventually have to result in more emission reductions elsewhere. If we get to the point where all journeys are included, that mechanism will have an effect. Furthermore, all domestic flights are already included in our emissions calculations.

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.

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.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she has been extremely generous. Will she share with the House what she expects the cumulative impact of aviation and shipping emissions to be between now and 2050, as currently measured by the Government? She will know that, in any long-term policy to reduce emissions, the important thing is the cumulative budget between now and then. What amounts are we talking about, and what share would they take of the overall budget allowed for the UK?

I think I would be very unwise to answer that question directly. I am sure I could find some projections, but the amounts involved are a long way ahead and will depend on global agreements, if we get them, and on emissions trading. We cannot honestly predict the extent to which aviation might or might not grow, as that will depend on the decisions that will be taken—here, in the whole of Europe and, I hope, globally. I might be able to produce a figure for the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that it would advance any of the arguments that are being made.

When the Government came to office, they inherited a fairly easy win on the Kyoto targets with the dash for gas from power generation. They strengthened their target, but why did they fail to hit that strengthened target?

At the time, we made a prediction about what would happen to our economy, which in fact has since grown massively—

Not now.

Of course, we are currently in some difficulties, but we have been able to grow our economy massively over the period to which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) alludes. At the same time, we have reduced our emissions to such an extent that not only will we meet our Kyoto commitments but we will do so more than twice over. That shows that this Government have done rather well in this particular field.

rose—

I will give way, and then I will make some progress.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she clarify how the Government will track emissions? As she knows, an important decision on Heathrow is coming up. According to the Government, the emissions associated with that policy will include emissions only from outgoing flights, not from incoming flights. Common sense should tell us that extra incoming flights would not be able to land if the airport were not expanded. Will she accept that what is important in Government policy is the decisionable part of emissions? How will she approach issues such as Heathrow? In such cases, if emissions are not calculated correctly, we will take the wrong decision.

As the hon. Lady will know, a decision has not yet been taken on Heathrow. When I continue with my speech, I will make it very clear how we are approaching the issue of emissions. I will also make it clear that if emissions are contained within the EU trading process, for example, the cap will determine what the emissions are and how the matter will be dealt with. If she will let me continue, our position will become much clearer.

To answer an earlier question, there are currently no UK Government forecasts of emissions from UK international shipping. The nature of the shipping industry makes recording shipping emissions particularly difficult, and there are a number of data constraints. The Government continue to seek improvements to the evidence base on international shipping emissions, principally through our role at the IMO. I therefore cannot accept amendment No. 69 or new clause 14, but I hope that the House will accept my firm commitment that we will continue to publish our projections on aviation emissions regularly.

Amendments Nos. 68 and 72 would require the Government and the Committee on Climate Change to take into account projected greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation and shipping when making any decisions relating to carbon budgets; that answers an earlier question. Amendment No. 68 makes specific reference to the projections that would be required by amendment No. 69. As I have explained, we do not agree that it is right to legislate for the publication of those projections.

However, I am pleased to say that we can accept amendment No. 72 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). The Government believe that when setting or advising on budgets, due regard should be given to emissions from international aviation and shipping; my right hon. Friend and the shadow Committee on Climate Change have made that clear. We are saying that we will have due regard to emissions from aviation and shipping, as the Committee recommended, but we cannot account for them domestically at present. There are a few technical problems with amendment No. 72; for example, it refers to “budget” rather than budgetary periods, and refers not to the Committee on Climate Change, but only to the Secretary of State. It does not refer to “targeted” greenhouse gases, which is how such gases are defined in the Bill. The Government will therefore return, before final consideration in the Lords, with a version of the amendment that has benefited from parliamentary counsel’s redrafting; I hope that all parties can agree to that.

Amendment No. 3 would simply require emissions from international aviation and shipping to be included in the Bill’s targets and budgets within five years of Royal Assent. That would have to be done, and nothing else could be done. We all agree that we are talking about global issues, and that a global solution would be the best way forward; I hope that I have made that clear. Such a solution would be much more difficult if we had a domestic deadline for deciding what the UK’s fair share was. It is possible for us to reach international agreement, through the United Nations framework convention on climate change, the IMO or the International Civil Aviation Organisation, that the best way to deal with international aviation or shipping emissions is through a sectoral approach, rather than through allocating such emissions to individual countries. In fact, that is one of the approaches already under discussion. The point is about methodologies. We could end up with a completely different proposal, so it would not be appropriate for us to make a unilateral decision. Indeed, we are already starting to see such an approach at EU level, where it is likely that under the EU emissions trading scheme, aviation emissions will be allocated to airlines rather than to individual member states.

I thank the Minister for giving way, perhaps at the right part of her speech now. If we in the UK take the lead, will we not 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?

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our 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 emissions have increased as well. Clearly, relying on bunker fuels is not the answer.

I am sympathetic to the concept that the Minister advances: that her hands should not be tied by writing into the Bill of answers that may well be the opposite of what will be in our interests or in the interests of reducing emissions. Does she agree, however, that the concomitant is that the Government must be extremely loud about the negotiations, making sure that people realise that we are taking the lead and that there is no excuse for delay on this front? Shipping is hugely important to the United Kingdom and hugely important if we are to do something about emissions.

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. We want to remain in the forefront and I am sure he will keep us up to the mark.

Finally, and especially if we are acting alone, there is the risk of perverse impacts, such as planes and ships filling up elsewhere and coming to the UK with a heavier fuel load, of air traffic simply diverting from Heathrow to Amsterdam or Paris, or of some ships with UK-bound cargo diverting to a continental port from where the cargo is delivered to the UK by another ship or another mode of transport. All those scenarios could increase emissions, rather than reduce them.

Can the hon. Lady assure us that despite her distinguished lifetime career advocating unilateralism, nothing in the measure will unilaterally hamstring our aviation or maritime industries if other countries do not follow suit?

I have just explained the complexity of including shipping emissions, whether unilaterally or within the EU emissions trading scheme. There are real difficulties. I gave the example of the calculations based on bunker fuels purchased in the UK and the fact that they gave a totally incorrect reading of what has been happening to UK shipping. The right hon. Gentleman should understand the complexity of the matter. It has to be sorted out and we have to find a way forward. That means that it is not sensible to adopt a measure today on our own behalf.

As I have said, we need a flexible approach to the evolving international context. I hope people understand that we are anxious to make progress on international aviation and shipping emissions, but we need to do that first in a European context and then in the global context. We will do what we can to take account of the necessary factors. I hope that amendment No. 3 will not be pressed to a Division.

We warmly welcome the Government’s change of heart and measured response in including emissions from international aviation and shipping in the Bill. We support new clause 15 and its accompanying amendments Nos. 36, 42, 43 and 50, which I understand are important tidying measures. Although we also recognise the real and practical difficulties, which the Minister has explained, of including aviation and shipping and although we acknowledge the danger of perverse incentives if we get the issue wrong, we think it right that aviation and shipping are included.

Conservative Front Benchers have consistently argued that aviation and shipping should not be exempt from accounting for the pollution for which their sectors are responsible. Furthermore, as the Minister said, not including aviation in the Bill would have perverse incentives. For example, it would incentivise an individual passenger, from a carbon point of view, to take a short-haul flight to Paris rather than the Eurostar. That cannot be right.

We should also be mindful of the positive way in which the shipping sector and certain responsible airlines have contributed to the debate: they have made important and constructive suggestions on the way forward. We must not forget that shipping is among the most carbon-efficient forms of heavy transport. Sea freight emits between 30 g and 90 g of CO₂ per tonne of freight per kilometre, whereas the equivalent figure for road freight is between 130g and 190g, and that for aviation is obviously much, much more.

We must therefore be cautious about always twinning aviation and shipping in this debate, as their carbon efficiency profiles contrast and they face different challenges specific to their sectors. We all acknowledge that there are difficulties with the measurement and apportionment of these emissions. However, it is important that we do not allow such issues of methodology, complex as they are, to let us lose sight of the principal aim of the Bill: to achieve a net reduction in emissions across the whole UK economy in sufficient proportion for us to play our fair part in keeping man-made global warming below the dangerous 2° level.

The necessity of eventually including all sectors of our economy in that task was reconfirmed to us earlier this month by the advice of Lord Adair Turner’s Committee on Climate Change. Mindful of that advice, we are sympathetic to amendments Nos. 68 and 69, tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths). We are also sympathetic to amendment No. 3 and new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb).

Methodology is crucial, so the Government need to publish their methodology for making their aviation and shipping emission projections, as would be required by new clause 14. That is particularly important to us. We welcome the announcement just now that the Government have taken on board the intent embodied in amendment No. 72. The right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has done a great deal of work: he has campaigned outside the House and brought together a large consensus on the measure. We welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to take the issue on board and, having redrafted it with the help of parliamentary counsel, bring it back to the House of Lords. That is typical of the spirit in which the Bill has gone through the House.

Having made our support for this proposal clear, I should like to sound a note of caution regarding the definition of aviation and shipping that the Government have chosen. Although we welcome the fact that they intend to include emissions from aviation and shipping, the measurement of emissions from the movement of goods and passengers should account for all stages of the journey rather than merely singling out the carbon footprint of flights and sea journeys to and from the United Kingdom. In that way, we could avoid unintended consequences such as encouraging more polluting methods of travel outside the UK. My party is committed to working with the Government in their efforts to secure the all-important international agreements on aviation and shipping emissions that are crucial if we are to crack this problem.

The Bill has come a long way since it was first introduced in another place last year. Now, on Report, one of the last outstanding totemic issues is finally being dealt with. If we can come to an agreement on this, it will turn the Bill from good legislation into world-class legislation. However, the caveats on definitions that Conservative Members spoke about at length in Committee and in the other place still remain. Although we are concerned about the definition of aviation and shipping, rather than our chosen definition of international trade and transport, we are not opposed to including aviation and shipping in the carbon budgets from the outset. Our concern is rooted in our wish to ensure that we do not, through well-meaning but poorly designed legislation, offer a perverse incentive to use more carbon-intensive modes of transport, such as road freight, over the more efficient moving of goods by sea. For example, if shipping becomes heavily regulated, particularly unilaterally, there might be an incentive for ships to dock at Rotterdam—or worse still, Istanbul—and then drive across the continent to enter this country via the channel tunnel. That is why we argued in Committee for aviation and shipping to be described as international trade and transport. We wish to prevent any system of measurement from being skewed in favour of more carbon-intensive methods of transport, which could happen if shipping and aviation are included without reference to other modes of transportation.

Let me give some practical examples. If one were importing oranges from Spain into the UK and sent them over on lorries, only the short leg of the journey, by ferry, would be included in the UK’s carbon allowance. If one sent them by sea, the whole journey would be counted, making transporting oranges from Spain by sea far more carbon-expensive. That would create a significant incentive for the use of road freight over sea freight, despite its being many times more carbon-intensive. If national-level emissions trading schemes were in existence through the transit states, the disincentive to use road freight would be strong enough to deter that, but if we introduced our system before some or all of our neighbouring European transit states, Britain would perversely incentivise the movement of goods away from direct shipping and towards the more polluting form of road transport. Similarly, when importing goods from China, the best way in terms of cost and the environment is for the container to be shipped directly to the UK. If we define only aviation and shipping without reference to other means of importing goods, that could mean it would make economic sense to ship goods only as far as Rotterdam and then move them by lorry into the UK in order to minimise the amount of carbon officially being counted.

I hope I have made the point sufficiently clear without sounding as though we are opposed to the inclusion of aviation and shipping, as per the amendment, but it is very important. We are in favour of these measures, and we have always argued that there should be no sectoral exemptions for aviation and shipping, but the definition of the process can still be improved. We would be keen to work closely with the Government on establishing a means of description that is more effective and would secure the international agreements on aviation and shipping that are vital if we are to find a truly holistic solution to this very important international problem.

Is my hon. Friend saying he is worried that the Government have not done enough work on possible dispersion of industry and activity out of the UK and into other centres? That would seem to be an own goal of the worst kind because it would not reduce carbon output, but it would reduce the number of jobs.

That is a far more concise way of putting the rather laboured argument that I was trying to make from the Dispatch Box.

This is a complex area. It is not beyond our ken to crack it, and some very sensible points have been made from colleagues on the Opposition Benches about the unintended consequences of including aviation and shipping. We do not want to lose sight of the principal aim of including those sectors in a way that makes them responsible for their own carbon pollution, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and with his experience as a former Secretary of State and from his considerable business career he is well placed to understand the complexities and dangers that could be posed to our competitive position. That should not, however, prevent us from offering to work constructively with the Government on the matter; if they unable to do it, an incoming Conservative Government would certainly want to work closely with the aviation and shipping industry to ensure that a satisfactory answer was reached in order to allow carbon measurements to be made, but in a way that did not harm unduly our international competitive position.

I am a little confused by the Prime Minister saying that we need an ever-increasing supply of oil. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that as a result of the Bill there will be a reduction in the amount of crude oil used by this country?

I do not think there is going to be an immediate reduction in the amount of crude oil used as a result of this Bill, because the Bill is simply a framework. It is a form of regulating and auditing our emissions; it sets targets. What we need to follow the Bill is a really ambitious transformational set of policies, which will allow an incoming Conservative Government to effect the sort of dynamic changes that have been so absent during the past 10 years, but without harming our international competitive position. The big danger of the Bill is that people place too much emphasis on the targets and auditing mechanisms contained in it, which are then mistaken for policies that will deliver the transformation to a low-carbon economy that is imperative. We will not find them in the Energy Bill. A whole range of policies are sadly lacking from this Government, but would not be lacking from an incoming Conservative Administration.

I warmly welcome the contribution to the debate made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, particularly her acceptance of amendment No. 72, which stands in my name. I would like to emphasise that it is in my name only because it was tabled very late, and I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who has been very active in this matter. I am pleased to support the amendments that stand in his name and those of many hon. Friends, many of whom are present.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows that the issue we are discussing is of key interest to many members of the public and non-governmental organisations, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that the improvements to the Bill and the scrutiny as it has gone through the parliamentary process have turned it into a piece of world-class legislation that gives a strong international lead. By accepting the amendment to take aviation and shipping into account, the Bill will send a clear signal internationally that including such emissions is the way that we have to go.

I accept that there has also to be international agreement on the matter. It was a great failing of the original Kyoto protocol that the bunker fuel agreement was not included. We all know the reasons for that—it was not possible to get international agreement, particularly given the resistance from the United States and others. We all know that whatever the outcome of the forthcoming elections in the US there will be a change of position, and I hope that that transfers to including aviation and shipping in the post-Kyoto 2012 framework, as we must. The European Union emissions trading scheme helps in that respect, and it may drive that change.

I would confirm what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said: the agreement on including aviation was reached under the UK presidency of the EU. It was a British initiative and a British priority. The UK presidency managed to get that agreement, which I believe to be so important. I also understand the point that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made about perverse incentives, although the logic of that is to include all sectors of the economy—at some point, surface transport must be included in the EU ETS—but those are matters for future negotiation.

I reinforce the point that many groups are pleased about this. I acknowledge the contribution of the Friends of the Earth Big Ask campaign, which included the two key elements: the 80 per cent. target, which has been conceded, and the inclusion of aviation and shipping, which is being conceded tonight. That will strengthen the Bill; the two issues are vital.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his amendment, which I support in principle. I note that the Government are minded to accept it, so I press him to define a little more tightly or expand a little on what he understands by “taken into account”?

There must be provision and planning, as there are for the 2012 time limit, to ensure that aviation and shipping are taken into account and included in carbon budgets. Lord Turner’s committee acknowledged that, although he recognised the current difficulties with agreeing international methodology and getting international agreements. It is imperative to achieve those and I hope that that will happen by 2009, when the all-important forum of the United Nations climate change convention at Copenhagen takes place. To fail to secure international agreement would be a global disaster. However, including such elements in the Bill demonstrates that the Government are serious about the matter. They are giving a clear lead to the rest of the world that those elements must be included if we are to move to a low-carbon future.

Although we welcome the new clause and the Government’s acceptance of the spirit of amendment No. 72, which the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) tabled, we remain concerned that the guarantees that the nation—and, indeed, the planet—seeks from the British Government about aviation and shipping are not firm enough. Although we may have confidence in the Under-Secretary and the new Secretary of State—any Secretary of State whose first act is to add his name to a Liberal Democrat amendment cannot be all bad—what about their heirs and successors? Can we be confident that future Secretaries of State, who are perhaps not so committed, will be bound by the amendments? We contend that they will not and that, in addition to the new clause, we need new clause 14. We welcome the supportive comments of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) about new clause 14, on which I suspect we will test the opinion of the House later.

We are concerned about new clause 15 because of its advisory nature. “Advise” or “advice” appear nine times in it—it is an entirely advisory clause. That would be fine if the Government were bound by the advice but, by definition, one is not bound by advice. Amendment No. 3 would remove the opt-out. The Government have the option after five years of saying, “This is all terribly difficult—we’re not going to do it.” Our worry is that aviation and shipping are so important that, if five years of the best brains around the globe getting together cannot crack the problem, we are genuinely in trouble. We do not want to give the Government the option after five years of slipping out a written statement on the last day of a parliamentary Session to claim that they had tried hard but could not include aviation and shipping because it was too difficult. There is not enough of a guarantee that those matters will be taken into account.

Although I am beginning to understand the theology of such issues, I cannot understand why the new clause and amendment No. 72, as redrafted, guarantee anything. They are a nudge and a wink and a hint from a well-disposed Secretary of State and Under-Secretary, but they guarantee nothing, especially when Ministers change and others may not be so committed. We therefore need to beef up those amendments.

New clause 14 states that the Government need to provide projections on aviation and shipping. We welcome the Minister’s assurance that the projections on aviation will be forthcoming and updated, but simply saying that shipping is too difficult, which is essentially the position, is inadequate. We need to resolve those difficulties. We need an approximation to the best guess, and doing that is not a science; it is an art. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) said, doing nothing is likely to be an awful lot further away from the optimal solution than having an approximation, an imputation or an assumption.

Our second concern is about the role of national leadership. I fully accept that in time everything will need to be done multilaterally, but we are not playing a game in which we cannot make a move until everybody else has moved. We are talking about a vital issue on which we need to lead by example and bring others with us. If we say, “We’re not going to include these things until everybody else does or until we’ve decided altogether how to do it”, the clock will be ticking in the meantime. That is our profound concern.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

If it is about oil, no. [Laughter.] Of course I will give way.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to my standard question about oil. Last week the Prime Minister said that we needed an ever-increasing supply of oil, which confused me in the light of our objective of having a low-carbon economy, because burning oil creates carbon dioxide and water primarily. Will my hon. Friend share his views on whether we can satisfy the objectives of the Bill, with or without the inclusion of aviation and shipping, while having an ever-increasing supply of oil?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. From our perspective we need to get on with decarbonising the economy. The goal of an ever-increasing supply of oil is literally nonsense and should certainly not be an aim of Government policy.

The point that I made in an intervention on the Minister is that it might be great that the Department of Energy and Climate Change sets such bold targets, but as long as the Department for Transport, for example, continues to act as if it were a wholly owned subsidiary of BAA, we will not achieve what we need to. It is vital to bring aviation and shipping within the scope of the Bill, so that the other bits of Government, which are perhaps not quite as well disposed towards tackling climate change as the Department of Energy and Climate Change is, are brought into line. The sooner we do that, the smaller the chance that irreversible decisions will be taken on airport expansion—decisions that would undermine the goal that we all share of tackling climate change effectively.

We welcome new clause 15 and the advice that will be forthcoming, but we simply do not believe that it goes far enough. In addition, we need the projections provided for in our new clause 14 and a calculation of what that means for non-aviation and shipping carbon emissions. The Minister’s view seems to be that the rest of the economy can just take the hit, because as long as the grand total is okay, we are all happy. However, the rest of the economy might have a view on taking more of a hit than aviation and shipping simply because aviation and shipping were not included in the budgets.

There is an equity issue, too. We might have a view, for example, on how fair it is to expect manufacturing to take the entire hit because aviation and shipping have been allowed to run away with their emissions. There is an equity issue to do with the balance of reducing emissions, not only at household level but between different sectors of the economy. Favourable treatment towards one sector, which would be likely if we did not bring it within the Bill, is undesirable for us all.

The hon. Gentleman started his speech with the premise that the Bill places no absolute requirement on the Government to include aviation and shipping in the budgets or the targets. That is correct, but I have struggled to follow how his new clause 14 would change that. I can see that it might improve the transparency of some of the information going into the mix, but it does not change the basic premise of his argument, does it?

As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, our new clause 14 would require projections on aviation and shipping that would otherwise not be made, which would deliver an impact assessment on the rest of the economy. As he knows, our concern is about the actions of future Governments. The consequence of our proposal would be for other sectors of the economy to exert more pressure to include aviation and shipping, because it would be much more transparent that they would take the hit. That would be an indirect way of bringing pressure on future Governments not to neglect the other sectors of the economy.

Does the hon. Gentleman’s point about the impact of aviation and shipping not show the absurdity at the heart of the Bill? Independent studies show that a 75 per cent. increase in emissions from shipping is expected in the next 15 to 20 years and that emissions from shipping already constitute more than double those from aviation globally. The fact that we are introducing an 80 per cent. reduction today while critical elements of delivering it are not within the power of the Secretary of State shows that we are posturing and not really putting down legally enforceable limits on emissions. In the meantime, we are failing to take the practical actions that could be taken to deliver emissions changes today.

I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman, in the sense that we certainly need a legal framework and practical, urgent action now. His point highlights the fact that the Government’s approach to aviation and shipping is almost one of “predict and provide”. They are almost saying, “We will let that rip, and then we will pick up the pieces in the rest of the economy.” That is why we cannot go on risking excluding those elements.

We are sure that the Government’s intentions are good, but we do not believe that even this Government—and certainly not future Governments—will be bound by what is in new clause 15 or amendment No. 72. We are therefore seeking to add new clause 14 to the Bill.

I think that the whole House welcomes the movement by the Government in this area. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), and I particularly welcome the fact that the Government are accepting the amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).

My hon. Friend the Minister rightly referred to the important interim advice from the Committee on Climate Change in the letter earlier this month to the Secretary of State of the new Department from the Committee’s chairman, Lord Adair Turner. I want to highlight two or three important sentences in the letter. The advice provides the basis for the Government’s movement, but it should also send an important message to Parliament and the Government about the decisive action that we need to take on this issue in the coming years. As we all know, the important recommendations were that the target for the reduction in emissions covered by the Bill—between 1990 and 2050, which is quite a long way ahead—should be 80 per cent., and that the target should include international aviation and shipping.

In an important point in the letter, Lord Turner explains the reasons for the change. He sets out what has changed since the report from the historic royal commission on environmental pollution in 2000, which is where the original 60 per cent. target came from. He lists six things that have changed, but I shall not refer to all of them today. However, I want to quote one of them. By way of an introduction to that, I want to point out that he suggests that

“the dangers of significant climate change are greater than previously assessed which argues for larger global, and thus UK, reductions.”

He makes six points, and in point No. 5, he states that

“there is now a greater understanding of the range of potential climate change impacts, their regional variation and the possibility of abrupt or irreversible changes. These analyses also suggest greater damages once temperature increases become significant.”

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman my usual question. If we are going to reduce carbon emissions, why do we need a constantly increasing supply of oil?

The important thing is the demand for oil. We must use less oil; that is not in dispute. Obviously, we want to use less oil, and fewer fossil fuels. I do not quite grasp the hon. Gentleman’s point—

rose—

I am not going to give way again, because many people who have served on the Public Bill Committee want to take part in the debate. However, we are not going to stop using oil in the next few years—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that this group of amendments is to do with shipping and aviation. An opportunity for more general comments about the targets for the reduction of emissions will crop up at a later point on the Order Paper.

I am grateful to you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you assure us that we will have an opportunity to debate the Third Reading of the Bill, and to raise the more general points that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to raise, and which many of us would like to discuss, in the course of assessing some of the new clauses, particularly in relation to their cost effectiveness?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give any such assurance. The progress that is made on dealing with the amendments that have been selected by Mr. Speaker depends entirely on the House, so I am afraid that I cannot give any such assurance. However, I have to rule on the relevance of any remarks made to the particular group of amendments under discussion.

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The crucial issue is the global temperature rise that the world has to avoid. There, of course, international aviation and shipping are highly important. Significant observations have been made to the effect that it is not easy to deal with these issues. I was a Cabinet Minister in the Transport Department when we were elected in 1997. The big thing that I grasped very quickly was that aviation was international. It was international organisations such as IATA—the International Air Transport Association—that had to be dealt with. International shipping is, of course, also important.

It seems to me that the Government should be congratulated on proposing these new clauses. We Opposition Members are very pleased to support them. It also seems to me that the Government are in a difficult position. On the one hand, they cannot build into the Bill a unilateral system that might be wholly different from what emerges from negotiation. That is a perfectly reasonable Government position, but if it is to be tenable, the Government must give the House—not just now, but throughout the coming months and years—a real understanding of their commitment to doing the things that will make a reality of these new clauses.

rose—

I think I will leave the issue of oil alone, as it has been somewhat widely discussed but is not entirely germane, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the issues that concern us at this moment.

The Government need to give us the confidence to support them by being much tougher about what they intend to do in practical terms about these issues. First, it is obviously true that we need an internationally agreed system of measurement. In that, the Government need to be particularly attentive, so that we can all make a proper assessment of how successful we, along with other nations, are in reducing emissions.

Secondly, it is terribly important to recognise that we cannot do these things except in common with our neighbours. I thought that the intervention on the subject of European law by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is no longer in his place, was outside the issue. If we do not do this on a European basis, there is simply no chance of doing it effectively at all. We need to recognise that the environment is not something that can be nationalised—it seems about the only thing that is not being nationalised at the moment, but it cannot be: we must do this on a European basis. It is an obvious fact of life.

Thirdly, if we are to proceed on a wider basis, I want to underline the points raised earlier about the danger of making things worse by accident. We know of many issues at the moment—the much-vaunted efforts for biofuels in the United States, for example—that have distorted the international situation very severely indeed. We have to be very careful that we do not do the same. The problem is that, in being careful, we must not put ourselves into a position of excusing not doing anything by saying how difficult it is to do. That is the issue that I want to press on the Minister.

If the Minister had come before the House to announce that there would be no third runway at Heathrow and that the ridiculous proposal to expand Stansted would not, in fact, go ahead, the House would have seen that the Government were doing all that they could do in advance of achieving the necessary international arrangements.

Does the right hon. Gentleman also oppose the expansion of our ports and docks? I do not know whether Felixstowe has any plans to expand, but should that expansion also be stopped? We are choosing just one target, aviation, which is fair enough, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should extend his argument to those other areas as well.

I wish that the hon. Gentleman, with whom I often agree, had listened more carefully to my argument. I gave a series of examples to which the Opposition were committed. It was therefore not unreasonable for me to suggest that if the Government wished to gain the universal support that I believe will be necessary if the Bill is be effective, it would be helpful if they clarified their approach to some of the key matters that are before us. The expansion of Felixstowe, which I declare as an interest in my constituency, is not a matter before us; the matter before us is the Government’s decision on Stansted, and their decision on Heathrow.

I know very well that the Minister is not the person making the decision in this instance, and also that, if she were, she would make that decision in a way of which I would greatly approve. However, I do not consider it unreasonable for me to say to her that it is imperative that the Government take seriously some of the decisions which we understand—notwithstanding the essentially light touch of the new clause—will be translated into action.

I want to say a little about unilateralism as it applies to aviation and shipping. It may be suggested that Britain should do nothing that might put her in a less powerful competitive position, and in general I think that that is true, but I hope the Minister will not be put off doing anything on that basis, or we shall find ourselves unable to take the lead that we have taken. The Climate Change Bill is unilateral in a very real sense, and so it should be.

Although I cannot be accused by anyone of being unilateralist in the sense that the Minister was but—I believe—is not now, I can at least say that unilateralism, in the sense of being a step ahead of others and helping them to make their decisions, is often necessary. T.S. Eliot once said “Being a step ahead of the rest is something that deserves congratulation and you are a hero; two steps ahead, and watch out for the men in white coats.” There is some truth in that. I do not want us to get into a position in which we have so damaged our international ability to trade and compete that we suffer unilaterally, but we do need to ensure that we are taking a step ahead of the rest.

Do I understand from my right hon. Friend’s logic that, while there is a case for being ahead, if others do not follow us we should cease to give leadership, and that therefore a Bill that binds us unilaterally, by law, to targets 42 years ahead goes too far?

No, I do not agree with that. If I may say so, I think that my right hon. Friend is entirely wrong. The world is faced with the biggest threat that we have ever known about in advance, and for us not to take these measures would constitute a deep dereliction of our duty to this generation, the next generation and the generation after that.

I must tell my right hon. Friend that I deeply disagree with the approach that if no one else helps as we go over the precipice, we had better run with them. That is a totally unacceptable position. We must stand up. That is why the Bill is so important, why the Conservative party supported it from the beginning, why it is a triumph of cross-party agreement that we have secured it, and why it is so important to tighten it up in the areas that it does not currently cover. But to do that—