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>Although the proposed clause would give the Commercial Flights Officer the right to see <i>all</i> aviation information, his job title supposedly limits his enquiries to <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-10-10a.62.1"> commercial flights</a>.</p>
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  
  What part of parliamentary procedure does this have to to with?  
  The name of a Bill does not limit it's power.  eg the Serious Organized Crime Act had plenty of provisions that were not related to Serious Organized Crime.  
  
  
  <p>The long title of the Bill is "A Bill to Make further provision about civil aviation, including provision about the funding of the Air Travel Trust; and for connected purposes" so no amendment could possibly concern military aviation. So there and you should read up on Parliamentary procedure and our wonderful constitution before you go commenting about things you clearly know nothing of. </p>
  
  
  