Queen’s Speech

My Lords, the gracious Speech contains the assurance of, "““measures to protect the environment for future generations””." Today we focus on a wide range of topics in the gracious Speech, including transport and the environment. The Government are poised to make a decision on the former that may imperil or indeed make a nonsense of their commitments on the latter. The announcement has been postponed, but if, as expected, the Government declare for a third runway at Heathrow, increasing flights to more than 700,000 a year, or for mixed-mode alternation, increasing flights to 540,000 a year, the result will be a grotesque breach of their environmental commitments. I declare an interest. I am Lord Watson of Richmond and I have been a resident of that beautiful part of London, often described as Arcadia, for more than 50 years. Its environment is such that it delivers, I am glad to say, on the promise of a century ago by London’s expanded District and Circle line, that it is where the country comes to town—or today, rather more, where the town can still come to the country to savour views of the Vale of Thames that constitute one of this country’s greatest scenic assets. I also declare an interest in protecting this asset, both as chairman of Arcadia, working with Sir David Attenborough to enhance this very special environment from Hampton Court to Kew Gardens, and as a former president of HACAN, a London-wide alliance against the remorseless expansion of Heathrow. I must explain one matter very clearly and frankly. It relates to democracy as well as to the environment. Indeed, I believe it strikes at the essence of trust in government. When I was president of HACAN, a debate was held in Richmond Theatre between Sir John Egan, then chairman of BAA, and me. The debate was chaired by David Dimbleby. Coachloads of Heathrow employees had been bussed in to demonstrate the economic necessity of the planned fifth terminal. Sir John, who I believe believed it at the time, said that this fifth terminal was essential if we were to compete with Frankfurt, Paris and Schiphol. Have you noticed how other airports get added? The latest to be added to the list are Milan and Dubai. Then he went on to say, ““If we get the fifth terminal, we will never ask for a third runway””. Well, here we are; a third runway, a sixth terminal and/or alternation, and in due course—why not?—a seventh terminal and a fourth runway. I sat in the Gallery in the other place on 11 November this year and heard the Minister, Geoff Hoon, pledge: "““We do not intend to compromise on our European air quality obligations””." I then read in the London Evening Standard on the fifth of this month his explanation of his delay in making an announcement. It was, ““I’m going that extra mile for the extra runway””. I felt not the outrage of nimbyism, but a real democratic sense of betrayal. The truth is that so many promises have been breached that it is simply not possible to believe the promises or to accept the assurances because of what has happened over the decades. Why has the opposition to what is planned grown so formidably? It is not just because the recession has eroded the economic case for expansion, although that is clearly so. It is not only because the environmental case against expansion has become so much more powerful since the 2003 report. It is because the Government are simply not trusted on the issue. Originally, 12 boroughs representing 2 million people were opposed to the expansion at Heathrow. Today, 21 boroughs representing 4.5 million people are opposed. A Government who value trust should be very careful. Of course the Government’s position is not easy. They find themselves stranded between growth, perhaps at any cost in a recession, and the commitment to the environment that they declare inviolate. Everyone knows that to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 is entirely incompatible with the continued expansion of Heathrow. Aviation already accounts for no less than 13 per cent of the UK’s total climate change impact. We can expand as planned and retain our 2050 commitment only if we end almost all other emissions in the United Kingdom. Faced with this conundrum, the Government remind me somewhat of Mark Twain’s comment about heaven and hell; namely, that he had good friends in both. The Government have to decide where their loyalties lie. In this, they may be helped by an immediate environmental challenge. In the other place, Mr Hoon pledges not to, "““compromise on our European air quality obligations””.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/08; col. 656.]" These relate specifically to nitrogen dioxide limits. In Brussels, the EU environment Commissioner states: "““Technical reports underpinning the Heathrow expansion suggest that nitrogen limit values … will be significantly exceeded in 2010””." Now, of course the Government may apply for a derogation to 2015, when these limits become mandatory. If we add 250,000 flights, we will certainly break the law by 2015. We will also surrender all possible claim to environmental leadership in Europe—pariah, not exemplar. Finally, the Government may seek one Houdini-like escape from the cage of their own contradictions. How about mixed mode—the end of runway alternation? That could add 60,000 flights without permission and would mean a different way for planes to land at Heathrow. They would have to come in much lower over a longer approach, and they would do at 90-second intervals—I repeat: 90-second intervals—without a break throughout all the hours when flights are permitted. It would be a really cynical betrayal of trust and a betrayal of the environment. The Government have explained the delay in their announcement to next year by the need to be seen to listen. They may have been so advised by their lawyers—I suspect that that is the case. However, we need not the appearance of listening but the evidence of new thought. There is still time for a troubled Government to change their mind, and they need to—for their own sake and ours.