Airport Expansion Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Transport
Monday 2nd March 2020

(4 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, this is a bizarre judgment, given that the previous court ruled that the Paris judgment was not legally binding, but is not the real root of the problem the fact that we have made these targets legally binding? When the climate Bill went through Parliament, I voted against it and pointed out that the sole effect of enshrining targets in statute would be that the Government’s policies would be open to judicial review. It is bizarre that judges should decide on policies costing billions of pounds without being accountable to the electorate for the costs that will be incurred. That fills with me foreboding, and that foreboding has proved to be justified by this strange ruling. Should we not cease to have legally binding commitments and make these decisions politically by the Government and Parliament of the day?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Portrait Baroness Vere of Norbiton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my noble friend. The Government stand by their decision to legislate that this country will be net zero by 2050, and what we have been able to achieve in terms of the decarbonisation of our energy system has been very significant. It is now time to turn to transport, and I believe that we can do it.