LibDems Caught Out Over Drafting Error

After their mass walkout over the EU Constitution, then Vince Cable's blunder at PMQSs last week, you might have thought that the LibDem whips would be doing their best to avoid any further procedural embarrassments in the House of Commons. Sadly it is not to be. In an astonishing blunder last week the LibDems put down a motion which effectively called for MORE noise pollution at Heathrow! They then tried to cover up their mistake by posting a slightly amended version of the motion on their website. In the website version they inserted the words “ending of”, thus completely turning around the meaning of the motion. Their website article then has the cheek to criticise MPs who did not support the motion!

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...

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.

Oh dear.