Climate Change Act 2008 (International Aviation and International Shipping) Regulations 2026
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 29 Jun 2026 · 19 speeches · Official Report
Motion to Approve
Moved by
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 April be approved. Relevant document: 58th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024-26
My Lords, I thank the House for its consideration. The draft Climate Change Act 2008 (International Aviation and International Shipping) Regulations 2026 were laid before the House on 14 April. This instrument makes the necessary regulations under the Climate Change Act to include emissions from the UK share of international aviation and shipping in the sixth carbon budget, all subsequent carbon budgets and the 2050 net-zero target. It formalises the Government’s long-standing planning assumption that the sixth carbon budget, starting in 2033, will be the first to include emissions from the UK share of international aviation and shipping. This has been the position of successive Governments. In 2021, the previous Government set the sixth carbon budget, factoring in the UK’s share of international aviation and international shipping. It also reflects the advice of the independent Climate Change Committee. This debate is not about whether we take action in these sectors-we already are. The Government are committed to ensuring that long-term growth in the aviation and shipping sectors is compatible with our climate obligations. We have been working multilaterally to reduce aviation and shipping emissions within the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization. We are now formally reflecting this effort in our domestic legal framework. For earlier carbon budget periods, international aviation and shipping were not formally included in our...
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing today’s regulations. I know my noble friend Lord Moynihan is disappointed not to be here for this debate-the second one in a week on an instrument that we all believe will be deeply damaging to the economy. He offers his apology as he has to attend a long-standing political appointment to which he is committed. I declare my interest as the unremunerated chair of Eq.flight, working towards the development of nuclear-derived sustainable aviation fuel. This House voted to regret last week’s instrument due to the nationwide effects that it will have on our economy and our way of life. Although this week’s is not quite so wide-ranging, we regret that the Secretary of State is taking his economic wrecking ball to two specific industries. Before I speak to the economic impact that this statutory instrument and other associated measures the Government are taking will have, I first note that the implementation of the instrument raises concerns. The Explanatory Memorandum states: “The exact methodology for determining the UK’s share of IAIS emissions for the purposes of measuring and reporting emissions from CB6 onwards will be determined separately by the Secretary of State, and before laying the first annual statement of UK emissions for the CB6 period”. The Government are putting the cart before the horse. International aviation and shipping will be expected to comply with regulations to help the Government reach their net-zero target...
My Lords, though it has been far from perfect, I would like to start by congratulating the Prime Minister on what has happened over climate policy over the last two years. Unfortunately, he seemed to forget it in his speech in Downing Street, but perhaps we could put on the record that the last coal-fired station was closed; onshore wind has started again; we have carbon budget 7 agreed; the future homes standard at last has been published; solar capacity has gone up substantially; and we had a very successful AR7 round in comparison with AR6. I was disappointed that the Prime Minister failed to mention these matters when he talked about his resignation in Downing Street last week. What strikes me, remembering the Climate Change Act itself back in 2008, pretty well everybody around the House regretted at that time that it was pretty well impossible-for all sorts of technical reasons and where we were in terms of the start of this process-to include international air transport and international shipping. It was seen as a hole in the system that needed to be repaired as time went on. So, there we were, back in 2021, when the carbon budget 6 was agreed under the previous Government and they took that step on the Carbon Budget Order 2021 to put this into practice at last. Hallelujah from all of us who had been waiting since 2008 for that to happen. I congratulate the last Government on achieving that. It is a shame that there seems to be this regression in terms of appetite to...
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I agree very much with the final point that he made. I find many things depressing at the moment in reactions to issues of climate change, but one of them is the lack of enthusiasm about British innovation. We can grow the green economy; we can tackle climate change; we can tackle emissions; and we have the intellectual firepower and the companies and the individuals who are interested in doing that. Yet here we are tonight with a perfectly reasonable proposition being put to us by the Minister to approve these regulations. I will not be insulting and say it is a bit of process-ology, but it is part of a process, and it is a process that has been going on for a long time. It is certainly not new news. It was announced in April 2021, nearly four Prime Ministers ago, by the then Conservative Government when the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, was our COP 26 president-designate, and when the atmosphere and the cross-party consensus on the need to change and to make progress was very much accepted. So what we are debating here tonight in terms of the regret amendment is something that has been agreed for many years-decades, actually-that has been accounted for in our forthcoming carbon budgets, and that industry has known about for many years. As I say, it is not new news. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Turner, who I think could not be here this evening, would be telling us that he discussed this issue when he was...
I am very annoyed that the Government and the Opposition keep talking about sustainable aviation fuel. That is a nonsense; it does not exist and it never will. However, I will direct most of my remarks at the regret amendment, which is ludicrous. I cannot even believe we are debating something like this. It is climate-denying nonsense. It is time that everybody understood and read up on the science. We have just had record temperatures for June and could easily be into the hottest year ever recorded. We cannot sit and talk about the economy being more important than the human ecosystem that the economy is destroying. We have to make the economy different. Here is a better suggestion for debate. We could start naming those heat domes that sit over Europe in the way that we name hurricanes and storms. We could call them “Exxon”, “Texaco”, “BP”, or after any other highly polluting fossil fuel company that created them. We talk about the economy-what do you think will happen when we have the consequences of flooding, heatwaves and droughts? Do you seriously think that will benefit the economy? It absolutely will not. Insurance companies will be hit hard, food supplies will devastated and I will still be calling you clods. Today, we heard a really anodyne, supercilious answer from Defra about the dangers to our food supply and food security-“No, it’s fine; it’s all sorted out. You don’t have to worry your pretty little heads about it”. That is absolute nonsense. Our food supplies...
My Lords, I remind the House of my declared interests and the fact that I was for 11 years chairman of the Climate Change Committee, appointed, reappointed and extended by Conservative-led Governments. What is being proposed today was presented by the Conservative Government. My noble friend who spoke here supported that with me. I heard nothing explaining what has suddenly changed. This is just like last week. The Opposition are constantly putting forward these things without explaining why they have changed their view from what was the concerted view of every Conservative Government going back to the speeches that I used to write with Lady Thatcher. Let us realise that this was a Conservative proposition and that the Climate Change Committee proposed it because it is a necessary way of explaining what will happen once we get the methodology right. Of course, we have to get the methodology right with the IMO and the international aviation authority. That is a perfectly reasonable way to do this. Had a Conservative Government been doing this a few years ago, they would have done exactly the same thing. There is no need for us to argue about it. This is 10% of our emissions. It is not acceptable to come to this House objecting to what the Government are doing without an alternative. If you are not going to do this, you have to say that you will do something else. I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, from this, because he has never believed that climate change...
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on matters of climate change. The way he spoke with such passion and wisdom is an example of this House at its best. Climate change presents the greatest collective action problem of our age. Every nation would prefer others to act first, which is why strong climate leadership matters. I found myself challenging the Government for not doing enough earlier this afternoon in Committee of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, so I want to commend these regulations tonight. Emissions from aviation and shipping have grown rapidly over the past 20 years. According to the Climate Change Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said, aviation emissions are projected to become the largest sector by 2040. Legislating specifically to incorporate these industries into carbon budgets is, therefore, the fair and proportionate thing to do. These regulations are not introducing new sector limits or altering targets. As the Government have already said, they are fulfilling prior commitments set out in carbon budget 6, which has already been legislated for, and carbon budget 7. Embedding these commitments in legislation empowers the Government to hold these industries to account for their emissions. It sets a clear example to other nations of our commitment to international climate goals. Omitting aviation and shipping from carbon budgets would weaken the credibility of our climate framework and damage our position...
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I very much welcome the regulations themselves; they have been a long time coming, but it is good that we are now including aviation and maritime within the sixth carbon budget. It is going to be challenging, and I certainly understand the need for flexibility in methodology. The Committee on Climate Change has set out some of the challenges we are going to face, but that we should do it I am absolutely convinced. This debate follows last week’s rather dispiriting debate, when the Conservative Opposition essentially turned their back on net zero and on any concern about climate change. In criticising the Government last week, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said nothing about the impact of climate change and nothing about what they would do in relation to net zero. The Commons debated last week’s and this week’s SIs together, and I read the debate. The shadow Energy Secretary, Claire Coutinho, made not one mention of what the Conservatives would do to mitigate or adapt to climate change. Instead, her sole response was to get rid of carbon tax and repeal the Climate Change Act-as noble Lords here will know, we were the first country to establish a long-term, legally binding framework. Are the Conservatives really serious about wanting to axe this landmark piece of legislation? In 2019, they beefed it up with commitments on net zero under the noble...
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of InterTrade UK, which is beginning a piece of research on ports and connectivity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We believe this is an important piece of work, given what has happened in terms of the Windsor Framework. I will concentrate my remarks on the shipping industry and the lack of methodology, which has been referred to by most of the speakers. That is not a criticism; it is just that I think there are things that need to be put on the record when it comes to adopting a methodology to deal with shipping, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. As further carbon and climate policies are introduced, it is important that His Majesty’s Government recognise Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances and ensure that the cumulative impact does not disproportionately disadvantage businesses and consumers that rely on maritime services. Around three quarters of goods entering or leaving Northern Ireland do so by sea, meaning that additional costs imposed on shipping are borne ultimately by the exporters, importers and, of course, consumers. Does the Minister and the Government recognise that Northern Ireland has particular geographic and economic circumstances which should be taken into account when the methodology is adopted in relation to shipping? The existing UK ETS recognises this. It has a 50% concession for Northern Ireland-Great Britain ferry routes. Of course, there is a zero concession for the Highlands and...
My Lords, I have three brief points to make and three questions for the Minister, and I hope in speaking to avoid the hysteria noticeable in some speeches this evening. My first point is that this whole ETS approach is yet another failed attempt at “We know best”. I could give many examples, but perhaps the most interesting recent one is that with the recent collapse of scenario RCP 8.5-on which much of the climate catastrophists’ claims have been based in the past couple of decades-and with the complete collapse as being agreed as no longer plausible, those catastrophist claims can now be seen as disinformation. That is a good reason for the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to understand why change is needed. By 2050, despite the “net zero” words, 50% of aviation fuel will still be fossil fuel. Again, so-called clean fuels, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, so eloquently said, are not at all carbon zero. Does the Minister agree that the whole ETS is built on shaky foundations and is better off abandoned? My second point is that the ETS market itself is a confected artefact. The intent was to create a free market in carbon. In fact, it is all government controlled and that is the direct opposite of a free market. In the end, and at the moment, 100% goes to government, so it is just another tax. It does not reduce carbon generation; it just transfers it to another country. Economic activity here is lower; economic activity elsewhere is higher. Does the Minister accept that the ETS...
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and all those who have spoken. Extreme heat records and regret amendments appear to be competing with one another for frequency at the present time. Last week, the UK broke the record for the hottest June day three days in a row, reaching 37.3 degrees Celsius on Friday. Six NHS trusts declared critical incidents, and the London Ambulance Service recorded its busiest day in its entire history, with demand higher than even at the peak of the Covid pandemic. Europe is the fastest-warming continent on earth, and forecasters are warning that future heat events are likely very soon. I find it genuinely difficult to hear arguments that we are doing too much, too fast on climate change. I will say something about the politics before turning to a couple of comments for the Minister. I want to return to the cross-party consensus on these issues, but I will first challenge the unravelling of our climate policy. When I hear calls from some to repeal the Act, abolish carbon taxes and cut renewable subsidies, with no credible alternative offered in their place, it becomes very hard to sustain the view that opposition to every government climate measure is made in good faith. If the Conservatives challenge settled climate policy, they should expect a response. The challenge put today, and in our last debate, by both the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Deben, was: if not this then what? The policy assumption underlying these...
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. I am greatly buoyed up by the tremendous speeches in support of this measure. It has restored my faith that this House is facing the right way on climate change and is behind measures to tackle climate change and get us to net zero. That is great. In that respect, I recognise that I was gently chided by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for being rather proceduralist in my first comments. I would like to put that right now by saying hurrah! We now have this on the statute book. It is something that the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Deben, and many others-including me-have been banging on about for many years. It always seemed that it was a terrible gap in our armoury to fight climate change that we were apparently allowing international aviation and international shipping to have a free pass as far as climate change contributions were concerned. In those days, it was partly because people could not think of how to do it easily. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, underlined the point that we are not discussing methodology because we cannot think of what to do but because there is a still emerging and developing consensus across the world in the negotiations with the international aviation authority and the International Maritime Organization on exactly how this can best be done-not that it cannot be done, but to get it right. As far as aviation is concerned, it is a question of getting a...
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate and genuinely take note of their comments. It is the speed of the rush to net zero that is harming our industry. I accept the entirely correct focus of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the 1.5 million jobs and the contribution to the economy of the burgeoning green economy. However, these Benches are united on the focus needing to be on cutting energy bills. Our grandchildren will equally never forgive us if we destroy our economy with high energy prices. That must be a concern for us all. We currently have electricity prices which are four times higher than those of the US. That is the issue that we need to address. Let us not ignore warnings from Tony Blair, who said that the net-zero policies being pushed forward are “unaffordable, ineffective” and “politically toxic”, or Gary Smith of the GMB, who recently said that the policies being pursued by the Government are “economic madness”. Even Unite the Union said: “No ban without a plan”. These points are worthy of consideration because the North Sea issue is very important. While everyone was distracted by Makerfield, an important referendum was, in effect, being undertaken in Aberdeen South. It was an overwhelming rejection of both measures in these climate change carbon budget regulations and the Government’s currently policy on the North Sea, which is referred to. Having said all the above, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in...
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.
House adjourned at 8.29 pm.