---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most   Gracious Speech

My Lords, I do not know why it was decided that the European Commission should be represented at this juncture by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, myself and the noble Lord, Lord   Williamson, who was one of the best secretary-generals the Commission ever had. But I think we have to put up with that. In future it would be rather better if the contributions made by those representing the old Commission were more spaced out. I should also like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in welcoming my noble friends Lord Drayson and Lord Triesman in their exacting and exciting roles. I wish them every possible success. As the past chairman and past president of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea, I begin by saying that the organisation owes a tremendous debt to two of its supporters now deceased: Lord Callaghan and Lord Campbell of Croy. The former, long before becoming Prime Minister, established ACOPS, in 1952, and remained involved in its affairs. Indeed, just a few days before he died he wrote to me saying that his son Michael would be an invaluable member of the ACOPS executive. I am glad to say that he now is. Lord Campbell of Croy was also a valuable colleague. I am indebted to him for the advice that he proffered throughout his career. I should like to deal in this speech with two themes: climate change and Europe. In a few weeks’ time Britain will assume the European Union presidency and I hope that environmental sustainability will be one of the main topics that it takes up. In that connection I should like to declare an interest as president of the British Airline Pilots Association, which has long been conscious of misgivings about climate change. I am delighted, through its outgoing chief executive, that British Airways has expressed both anxieties and opportunities on this score. The third runway at Heathrow, which we hope will be constructed between 2015 and 2020, will be dependent on our ability to effect stringent environmental criteria for enhancing air quality and limiting noise in both the air   and on the land. Global warming must feature in aviation’s future, and concentration on reducing CO2 emissions and other deleterious effects of jet aircraft in the upper atmosphere is a must. Environmentally friendly aircraft design, ways to achieve shorter routings, the employment of alternative methods of aircraft descent—a raft of measures—are absolutely essential. Above all, the application of cleaner technology together with a viable system of emissions trading between airlines will become part and parcel of that process. Rod Eddington, BA’s outgoing chief executive, had this to say in our parliamentary magazine:"““Such arrangements would achieve far more for the environment than a tax on aviation fuel, which would leave emissions levels untouched””." I think he is absolutely right. I turn to my second theme, Europe. In my view it is profoundly mistaken to believe that Britain’s future should be unduly influenced by George Bush and the neo-cons. They have failed to establish their bona fides. They were guilty of a colossal misjudgment about Iraq. Since the war the toll in death and injury of both military and civilians has been immense. But we should not forget that Saddam Hussein’s lethal contribution before the war was also unforgivable. The campaign launched against Tony Blair during the recent election did not attain the standards of fairness that the British people were entitled to expect. Ultimately, the Conservatives—to some extent, at all events—paid for that. I believe that the Prime Minister was honestly misled. But Iraq has happened and withdrawal now would be misconceived. We should concentrate on the task of reconstruction, as my noble friend Lord Drayson has argued. Regarding the European Union, we must get off the fence as soon as possible and demonstrate our commitment to making the Union work for the benefit of all its citizens. The limbo in which we float at present will only marginalise our country in the long term. We do not have to be subservient to everything proposed within the European Union, but negative posturing can only undermine the benefits of a united Europe. We have to be seen to be involved, helping to shape its future, and by doing so our voice will carry more weight not just on European affairs but on foreign policy issues at large such as the Middle East. It follows that the constitutional treaty, even if it is not entirely to our liking—no compromise can ever do that—should in principle be supported. It points the way for a multilateral partnership which we fervently hope will establish prosperity and peace.