---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, I begin by joining others in welcoming both my noble friends to their new positions on the Front Bench. They have enviable reputations as masterers of their brief and the debate today has shown that there will be plenty to master in their new roles. My contribution will be short and humble because I am no scientist or expert of any sort and, inevitably, a little repetitive given the diversity, richness and authority of what has already been said. I am sorry that I was obliged to miss some notable speakers, but I hope and believe that the issues I am concerned with do bear repetition—although I have to say that I wish that there was a good synonym for the word "emission". If there is one, I have not yet found it. Last week the Office for National Statistics published figures to show that total UK greenhouse gas emissions fell by 8.1 per cent between 1990 and 2003. That is good news, until one looks at the bottom of the page where it is revealed that greenhouse gas emissions from transport and communications actually rose by 48.4 per cent over the same period. That is not such good news, but there is worse. The Guardian and other newspapers reporting the figures pointed out that the ONS statistics exclude emissions from aviation because they are not included in those counted under the Kyoto Protocol. However, reports reveal that emissions from UK aviation have risen since 1990 by not far short of 100 per cent, from 20.1 million tonnes to 39.5 million tonnes. We have heard that the Government are committed to a range of strategies to deal with the growing problem of greenhouse gas emissions, but I fear that those efforts will be significantly undermined if the damage being done by the rapid expansion of air transport is not addressed. I freely admit that I have a strong personal interest in this matter, driven by the fact that I live not far from Stansted airport which, as the House will be aware, is at the centre of the Government's plans to expand UK airport capacity. But my concern is not mere nimbyism. As we have heard from several noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, the world faces a huge threat from the effects of global warming and few doubt that hydrocarbon emissions, many of them produced by transport of various kinds, are major contributors to the accelerated changes we are now witnessing. That is evidenced, for instance, by data emerging about the Arctic, where it has been calculated that temperatures could rise by as much as 7 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, resulting in a decline in sea ice cover of up to 50 per cent. To misquote the Duke of Wellington, I do not know what effect this information has on the Government, but by God it terrifies me. In fact, I do know to some extent what effect it has and I have no doubt that these grave matters are taken extremely seriously by my noble friends on the Front Bench and their colleagues, as the gracious Speech reveals. However, there is on the face of it a contradiction between on the one hand, striving to make a significant impact on the problem of climate change, as the Prime Minister has pledged to do by making it a priority during the UK's forthcoming presidency of the G8, and pressing ahead on the other hand with a programme of air transport—and therefore airport—expansion which can only make matters worse by adding to the infrastructural amenity and sustainability problems facing the communities affected by the proposed developments. This issue was mentioned earlier in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I remark in passing that according to recent newspaper reports, the timetable for expansion at Stansted airport has already had to be revised because of difficulties in making the business case stand up. I accept that air transport contributes to our economic prosperity, as my noble friend Lord Jones indirectly pointed out. I also recognise that it is no easy matter for a government to think in terms of restricting the much-vaunted "freedom to fly" that low-cost air travel has brought about. But some freedoms are dangerous and we ought, both collectively and as individuals, to exercise them with care, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich pointed out in his contribution. Writing in last Saturday's Guardian, the respected editor of Granta magazine, Ian Jack, said that: "It is so very hard to be good, and we are not encouraged to be good. It is also expensive to be good". He went on to say that: "Two months ago I booked to go by train for a week's holiday in the south of France. Cheapest return fare available for a family of four: £630.00. Four returns by easyJet London to Nice: £238.00. Consequence of taking the much faster and cheaper option: on a per passenger calculation, somewhere around six times the hydrocarbon emissions of the same trip by rail". I can add to his testimony my own evidence. Next week I have to go to Paris for a few days, which as it happens is very nice. Since Stansted airport is on my doorstep, I could fly there and back for less than £50 plus the bus fare from my front door to the terminal. I chose to go by Eurostar which, together with the rail fare to London, will cost nearly four times as much—because, in part, of the absurdly benign tax and charging regime levied on aviation. That point was made by other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. "More fool you", some might think, when imagining that I might take the cheaper option. But cheap is not always cheerful. When my noble friend replies, will he reconfirm that dealing with hydrocarbon emissions is a high-level priority for the Government, both in national and regional development strategies and in our relations with other governments? In particular, as has already been raised in the debate, would he address the need to develop faster, cheaper and ultimately far more sustainable rail networks?