---

Civil Aviation Bill

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who will not be surprised to learn that he features quite strongly in the opening passage of my speech. I perceive that he has an eye problem, and I am sorry if that is the case. I hope that he is not in too much discomfort: we would not wish to see anyone in pain. This is probably the key debate of the afternoon, because the subject of whether an environmental duty should be included in the Bill invited the most disagreements in Committee. The amendments take account of our discussions in Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Cambridge for their advice on drafting amendments, and to the Minister for the guidance that the Government have given to the Opposition about how to address those issues. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said of the hon. Member for Cambridge:"““He seems to be arguing for an environmental duty, but he does not like the amendment.””" No change there, then. The hon. Gentleman does not like these proposals either. My hon. Friend went on:"““He has not tabled any amendments of his own””—" the hon. Gentleman was having difficulty writing one in Committee, and he is still having difficulty six weeks later—"““but he is looking for the Minister to come up with an alternative. Is that correct?””" The hon. Member for Cambridge replied:"““That is an extremely good summary of my position. I would like to see an environmental duty and I hope we will be able to work across all parties to find one that delivers the aims that we share. I have faith in the Minister's ability to find that.””––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 119]" Sadly, no such measure has arrived today, so he is going to have to wait. The hon. Member for Cambridge criticised our proposal in Committee, just as he has done today. At that time, he said:"““First, it does not mention what the shadow Minister himself mentioned at the beginning of his speech—the Committee on Climate Change. It is a great shame that the amendment does not talk about working with it; it advises the Government on setting and meeting carbon budgets and has already done a huge amount of work.””––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 117.]" The hon. Gentleman went on, rightly, to congratulate the Committee on Climate Change. I am sure that most Members would do the same. I would have hoped that our new amendment 3 would adequately address the points that the hon. Gentleman was raising. A key recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change's report on international aviation and shipping, which was published this month, states:"““Our report concludes that international aviation and shipping emissions need to be formally included in carbon budgets. Emissions from these sectors were initially left out of carbon budgets…when the Climate Change Act became law. However, they have been informally included in the 2050 target…Under the Act, a decision on the inclusion…is required by the end of 2012. Formal inclusion of these emissions will ensure a more transparent, comprehensive and flexible accounting framework under the Climate Change Act and provide more certainty for the future.””" I would have hoped that amendment 3, which now makes reference to the Committee on Climate Change and to greenhouse gas emissions, would cover the points that the hon. Gentleman was unhappy with in Committee. Amendments 4 and 5 cover issues similar to those that were so ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).