text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/012/06012.i-iv.html"> Civil Aviation Bill</a> - <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/012/amend/51010m01.htm"> New Clause 4</a> - Commercial Flights Officer
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>The proposed <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/012/amend/51010m01.htm"> New Clause 4</a> of the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/012/06012.i-iv.html"> Civil Aviation Bill</a> was turned down by those who voted No.</a>
  
  <p>This Clause would have required the Secretary of State to appoint a "Commercial Flights Officer" who would have had unrestricted access to all information held by any organisation about the aircraft flights (time, height, speed, route, and type), and whose duty would have been to collate and publish factual details about nightflights and noise whenever requested to do so by an MP.</p>  
  
  <p>It's <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-10-10a.62.1"> perfectly clear</a> that as the subject of the Bill is civil aviation the Commercial Flights Officer would not extend to military aviation but some people would not know what a long title was if it bit them in the leg so I don't know why some of us bother.  </p>
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  I think this says it all in short form as a fair summary.  There's no need to say more.  
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)