You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have made it clear that of course we will ensure that the full results of the consultation are made public when

4 Mar 2008 : Column 980

Ministers make their decision. We take these matters seriously, but we also believe that the future of Heathrow Airport is critical to the economy of the south-east.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any alternative site to Heathrow would inevitably involve a massive delay and the removal of most airlines from the airport to the advantage of airports on the Continent? What possible advantage is there in coming to the conclusion that Heathrow ought to be closed?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot see any advantage in arguing that Heathrow ought to be closed. Since 1990, when Heathrow was second in the pecking order of international airports in Europe, we have slipped down to fifth position. Paris now has four runways, while Schiphol has five, and we have lost some 47 routes since that year. Obviously this decision is vital to our economy.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, how much is the future of London airport dependent on the Olympic Games being held here in the near future?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Olympic Games decision has already been made. It is vital that the upgrade of Heathrow is seen through to a successful conclusion so that people coming to the United Kingdom for the 2012 Olympics arrive here at an airport that is comfortable and easy to understand.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, notwithstanding the rather disobliging remarks of my noble friend Lord Soley about the Independent, perhaps I may draw the Minister’s attention to an editorial in that newspaper last weekend, which stated:

Is not the Government’s persistence in sticking to their current view on airport expansion making them look increasingly like the proverbial flightless bird?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not agree. We can achieve growth in aviation and have stability in the quality of our environment. It is on that premise that we advanced our consultation exercise. We believe that we can match the environmental expectations to which we all hold.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the Minister give an undertaking that serious consideration will be given to the building of a big new airport in the Thames estuary? This would enable stacking over the North Sea and would stop flights coming in and going out over London. Furthermore, the estuary would be a much safer place to have an airport than Heathrow, which is slap in the middle of where people live and not a safe place to have an airport.



4 Mar 2008 : Column 981

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I note with interest the noble Earl’s support for an airport off the coast of Kent or Essex, whichever choice you take on this. That would be a massive undertaking; the infrastructure costs alone would be somewhere in the region of £33 billion. I hesitate to think how long it would take to construct and the damage that would be done to our economy in waiting. It is interesting that, according to the Times today, Boris Johnson was uncontactable when challenged by Conservative MPs around Essex and Kent who were somewhat dismayed by his support for such a proposition.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the case for increased employment opportunities is not open and shut but has to be balanced against the effects on pollution and the destruction of homes and the environment? I declare an interest in that I chair my local residents’ association, which is in the vicinity. We should not assume that the case has been proven that London could not expand its economy without expanding Heathrow.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the dilemma that the issues surrounding Heathrow Airport present to many people. However, I think that we can satisfy the high environmental standards that we have set out for ourselves and reap the benefits in investment and in strengthening our economy by ensuring that we have a sensible approach to further and continued investment in the aviation industry.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, how many airports in Europe are to the east of the cities that they serve?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot quite answer the noble Lord on that, but I shall write and tell him.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, is not one of the major reasons why people want to expand airport provision in the south-east the amount of internal air traffic in this country? Would it not be better for the huge investment that is proposed for new runways and terminals in the south-east to be put into new high-speed railway lines to other parts of this country? That would be far more beneficial both economically and environmentally.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is an interesting question. Of course the Government want to stimulate and develop the rail industry. We have had a 40 per cent increase in the number of passengers using the network over the past decade. The number of internal short-haul flights to Heathrow has fallen quite dramatically over the past few years because people are moving to the rail network as an alternative.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in terms of passenger satisfaction, how does London Heathrow compare to other airports, such as Amsterdam Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle?



4 Mar 2008 : Column 982

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know that strong views have been expressed in your Lordships’ House about the quality of the experience at Heathrow, but it is fair to say that major improvements are now coming on stream. Terminal 3 has been properly completed, Terminal 5 is to be opened in March this year, the refurbishment of Terminal 4 will be completed in 2009 and Heathrow East will open in time for the Olympics in 2012. There is an improving story so far as the quality of experience at Heathrow is concerned.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is it not true that the 47 routes that hitherto flew from Heathrow to other parts of the planet have now gone to continental airports, that the flights continue and that there has been no effect whatsoever on climate change? If we continue to have an unbalanced examination of the problems that we face here, we will end up with a decline in Heathrow. All we will see is a growth in Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt with no effect on climate change.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a real and present danger. It has to be understood that Paris is working at 75 per cent capacity; I think that Schiphol and Frankfurt work at a similar level. We do not have capacity at Heathrow, which is why the third runway is extremely important. We have to look at the whole issue of emissions, not just within the aviation sector but across the whole of industry. That is why the Emissions Trading Scheme is so important and why we lay great stress on ensuring that we have an effective Europe-wide scheme.

Climate Change Bill [HL]

3.05 pm

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 10 [Matters to be taken into account in connection with carbon budgets]:

Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 47:

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 10 sets out the matters to be taken into account by both the Secretary of State and the climate change committee in recommending and setting climate change budgets. Subsection (2)(h) speaks of,

What does the latter mean? Do we take into consideration who the president of the United States is and his reluctance to take action on climate change, or what?

The amendment seeks to make explicit that when the Secretary of State and the climate change committee are looking at the international context, they must consider the impact of their actions on the

4 Mar 2008 : Column 983

poorest people in the poorest countries. As we know, climate change will affect those living at the margins first and foremost. That is one of the main reasons why action is so urgent. We already see the impact on fragile countries, and it is disproportionately far greater than in the United Kingdom, which so far has been relatively well cushioned.

Developed countries have done more to produce climate change and have a greater responsibility to tackle it, but we also know that that will be difficult; the temptation will be to try to buy credits elsewhere to meet targets. So we need to ensure that we always bear in mind the impact of our actions on developing countries and on poverty reduction. We also know that we will ultimately require reductions in emissions in developing countries, or at least that those countries will need to develop in a different way so as not to increase their carbon emissions. International negotiations will need to safeguard the right to development in this circumstance. Again, we must bear in mind the necessity to address poverty reduction.

The Minister may well say that that is already at the forefront of the Government’s mind. To take a case in point, there are the new appointments to the climate change committee. I welcome this group, with its wealth of experience, but the press release accompanying the appointments states that it brings together expertise,

Nowhere does it say that expertise on the particular effect of climate change on developing countries is represented there. For that reason, it is vital that this aspect is in the Bill. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I declare an interest as a vice-president of Tearfund, the international relief agency. I have also travelled to other parts of the world with Christian Aid. We have to recognise that there is a huge disparity in carbon emissions across the world. In the UK, it is estimated that each person emits just under 10 tonnes of carbon per year. In Bangladesh, the figure is 0.24 tonnes and in Ethiopia it is 0.067 tonnes. Apparently, the Earth can sustain just under one tonne per person of carbon going into the atmosphere. It seems to me and many involved in the field of international development that we need a much more equitable distribution of carbon emissions. International co-operation to alleviate poverty in Africa, for example, which is highly commendable, is undermined if we do not address issues of climate change. What is the point of helping Africa with aid, trade and debt relief if, with the other hand, we change the climate and ruin its harvest through the emission of extra carbon? The position of Her Majesty's Government’s with this Bill would be enhanced even further if we were able to include the amendment, which these Benches support.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I suspect that the Minister will not accept it, but I hope that he will speak to the

4 Mar 2008 : Column 984

climate change committee. When we consider buying credits from other countries, it is important that we do not do so in a way that will be cheap for big business in this country but expensive for those in other countries in terms of development. That should be set out in certain guidance. We often talk about the amount of pollution that China pumps out into the atmosphere, but we would do well to remember that most of the Chinese population lives on about $1 a day. It is easy for us to say that we should get rid of all carbon credits overseas, but perhaps we should look at the more expensive option of doing it in this country, especially if it is going to affect those in developing countries.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing back this issue, but I draw the attention of the House to subsection (3) of Clause 10, with which the amendment deals. It states:

We are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment but we do not think that advising on the level of the budget is meaningful. The Committee on Climate Change advises on the level of the budget only, not on the means of bringing it about or the policies needed. The amendment would have to be targeted on what the committee is for, which would not be meaningful.

The Government have taken a lead on tackling poverty reduction in recent years and continue to do so. The amount of foreign aid to developing countries has been redoubled. By 2010, the Government will have trebled the aid budget in real terms since 1997. We are also on course to deliver the UN gold standard of 0.7 per cent of gross national income to be spent on overseas development assistance by 2013. Along with other issues relating to international finance agreed at Gleneagles that I could list, our commitment to dealing with international poverty reduction cannot be questioned—that is not to say that it will not be questioned, as the amendment seeks to imply.

The committee can take into account issues such as scientific knowledge about climate change. It is not bound by the clause itself. Although there is a list, the clause quite clearly states that the committee is able to consider any matter that it thinks appropriate, as can the Secretary of State. Now that the shadow committee is established and we know the membership of the committee, we should leave this issue, along with others that we will be debating, to members of the committee for the time being. It is right for us to offer our advice, as everyone else will, but they have considerable expertise in analysing a wide range of impacts in relation to climate change. It would not be fair to give them a role that does not fit in with their remit—the invention and implementation of policies to meet the budget targets. The effect that the noble Baroness is seeking could be held to be implied already in the Bill, should the committee wish it. People will be watching this issue. Therefore, I do not believe that we should accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.



4 Mar 2008 : Column 985
3.15 pm

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments and the Minister for his reply. This issue above all issues cannot be geographically ring-fenced. I would be more reassured if the Committee on Climate Change had among its members people who were experts in this specific area. Whatever the UK brings forward will indeed have an impact on developing countries. We are likely to return to this issue later in the Bill, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]

Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 49 and 50:

(a) the target in section 1 (the target for 2050), and(b) any target set under section 5(1)(c) (power to set targets for later years).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 11 [Duty to report on proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets]:

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 51A:

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. The amendments are designed to strengthen the Bill by recognising the need to drive the climate change policy agenda across government departments and by placing the Prime Minister and his Government centre stage in terms of accountability to Parliament.



4 Mar 2008 : Column 986

The amendments are refined versions of similar ones that we tabled in Committee. They would transfer from the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister the duty to report on policies for meeting the budgets and the duty to respond to the Committee on Climate Change’s reports on progress. We feel that this is of fundamental importance to the functioning of the Bill and to ensuring that climate change policy is implemented with the greatest possible focus.

As I noted in Committee, climate change is a cross-departmental issue. Given the importance and sheer breadth of the issue, it is crucial to have the Prime Minister in a central position. The duties that these amendments would place on him are twofold. First, he would be required to lay the report before Parliament setting out the proposals and policies designed to meet the carbon budget. As these policies will affect nearly every government department, it is right that their announcement should come from the only person with responsibility that cuts across the board. The brief of the Secretary of State for Defra—or indeed any other Secretary of State—is simply not wide enough to ensure that these policies are driven across Whitehall with force sufficient to put them in the prime position in decision-making. The Minister himself knows, through his considerable ministerial experience, just how difficult that can be. His policy on public procurement of British produce by the Government and public bodies is just one example.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page