The Liberal Democrats have misrepresented a motion that they tabled in parliament on their website, making it appear that they voted to support runway alternation at Heathrow, when they actually tabled and voted for a motion condemning runway alternation.
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): I beg to move,
That this House recognises the urgent need to curb carbon dioxide emissions to tackle climate change; condemns the Government for following policies that will instead lead to significant growth in emissions from the aviation sector; particularly condemns plans to allow a third runway at Heathrow; believes that the consultation paper Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport was deeply flawed and is concerned at the undue influence BAA played in the drafting of the paper; notes that the paper significantly overstated the economic case for a third runway while greatly underplaying the serious environmental consequences, including, as well as the extra emissions from flights, the increase in intensity and distribution of noise for those living under the flight path through runway alternation and the threat of forced relocation for the inhabitants of Sipson village; and calls on the Government to withdraw permanently plans for a third runway at Heathrow, to keep the present cap of 480,000 flights per year as opposed to the 700,000 envisaged in the consultation document, to rule out any further increase in airport capacity in the South East, and to indicate to the aviation sector that it will have to live within its existing infrastructure capacity.
(Hansard: 2nd April 2008)
The text of the motion posted on the Liberal Democrats website...
Oh dear.
That this House recognises the urgent need to curb carbon dioxide emissions to tackle climate change; condemns the Government for following policies that will instead lead to significant growth in emissions from the aviation sector; particularly condemns plans to allow a third runway at Heathrow; believes that the consultation paper Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport was deeply flawed and is concerned at the undue influence BAA played in the drafting of the paper; notes that the paper significantly overstated the economic case for a third runway while greatly underplaying the serious environmental consequences, including, as well as the extra emissions from flights, the increase in intensity and distribution of noise for those living under the flight path through the ending of runway alternation and the threat of forced relocation for the inhabitants of Sipson village; and calls on the Government to withdraw permanently plans for a third runway at Heathrow, to keep the present cap of 480,000 flights per year as opposed to the 700,000 envisaged in the consultation document, to rule out any further increase in airport capacity in the South East, and to indicate to the aviation sector that it will have to live within its existing infrastructure capacity.
9 comments:
Ha ha the clown Baker , is too busy threatening China from our Town Hall.....(they are quaking in Bejjing) to get anything right . You can rest assurred his little chums at the Sussex Express will,not report this .
Since when hasa little drafting error worried the Lib_Dems? After all, didn't they say that the EU Treaty was not the same as the Constitution?
They could do with a visit to 'Specksavers' then perhaps they might see what they are signing upto.
Keeping the cap at Heathrow is fine. But they need mixed mode to give ullage so that a bit of snow does not bring London airspace crashing down.
Iain,
Heathrow wouldn't need a third runway if they changed the ATC arrangements, and had bi-modal ATC - i.e. similtaneous taking off and landings on the same runway, rather than the current uni-modal system where we have one for landing and one for taking off.
Most airports with one runway (Gatwick for example) are bi-modal. LHR currently have about 1600 traffic movements a day, but ATC capacity is for more than that now they have the new terminal and new airspace structures over London.
The lower sectors of air space were recently changed to improve capacity and reduce noise over the London/Clacton/SE area, (which is the businest airspace is Europe due to large numbers of high-level overflies, and large numbers of low-level take-offs and landings from the London airports).
But whht would really help massivly is moving to functional air space blocks and fewer ATC providers. At the moment, European airspace is like a patchwork quilt, with so many different ATC providers (19 I think), all with different systems (something like 40+ IT systems which sometimes cause clashes). This means that airspace is not used efficiently, meaning bigger fuel burn, higher delays and higher costs. If we moved to the north american system (two air space blocks - USA and Canada, and two ATC providers - NavCan and the FAA - and one ATC system), things are much more efficient.
In other words, we need fewer ATC providers, and our ATC provider - NATS - would be in an excellent place to take over running the airspace of say France and Benelux, with Aena running Spain and DHS running Germany. NATS, Aena and DHS are already co-operating on new systems which will improve things.
The trouble is that nationalism rears its ugly head and no-one wants to give over control of their airspace to a company based in another country!
This is where the EU falls down (again) and fails, because the EU cannot make up its maind if its ATC body is a service provider or a regulator - which was exactly the problem the UK had when the CAA nad NATS were the same organisation. Now they are seperated - with CAA regulating and NATS providing, we have the best ATC systems in Europe!
As for the Lib Dems, it shows them to be a bit foolish and sloppy in these matters - but I suspect that the general direction of the text makes their views fairly implicit.
I agree however, they should have admitted it was a typo, rather than seeing to cover it up.
Why do people not simply hold their hands up and say "ooops", rather than trying to cover up - this is what the public hate, not people who make genuine errors and typos in difficult to draft text!
The Lib Dems may have made a drafting error but at least that party knows where it stands on Heathrow expansion (against it). As opposed to the Conservatives who are trying to face both ways on it.
From the debate of April 02: ‘ . . Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat): I have already answered that. Let me read the sentence from the motion: "the increase in intensity and distribution of noise for those living under the flight path through"—the word "ending" is missing—"runway alternation". Our policy could not be clearer. [Laughter.] Well, let me tell the House what the policy is in one sentence: it is to oppose any third runway at Heathrow under any circumstances. I challenge the Government and the Conservative Front Bencher to match that pledge. We would not build or support any third runway at Heathrow under any circumstances. I invite the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) to make a similar pledge when she speaks in due course.
Voters in London will have to look at three parties in the local elections, the mayoral election and the general election in respect of policy on Heathrow. We know that the Government have been captured by BAA in terms of policy, and we will find out where the Conservatives stand with their chaotic policy on Heathrow. We are the only party in this House that will oppose the third runway at Heathrow under any circumstances.’ http://tinyurl.com/3pxsmz
China is evil. Why do people treat it like a joke when the Lib Dems stand up to them. Well done to the Lib Dems to hating thr Chinese government.
Looks to me like the uual Lib-Dem approach, saying one thing to one audience and something totally different to another!
Free Europe Constitution is better than the Treaty:
1.You can vote about it.
2. You can read it.
Vote YES or No at www.FreeEurope.info !
Post a Comment