---

Civil Aviation Bill

The hon. Gentleman makes a different but none the less good argument. I am arguing that the Bill, unamended, with the word ““may””, does nothing to protect my constituents or his constituents in villages such as Melbourne and those areas that are under or near the flight path. To pick up on his argument, although Nottingham East Midlands airport—Manchester Airport Group—would be compelled under the Lords amendment to enter into arrangements that set up an effective charging regime, there is no template or scheme, designed by the Civil Aviation Authority, the Manchester Airport Group or, still less, the Secretary of State for Transport, to show an errant airport, lazy airport or uncaring airport, if one can have such a description of an inanimate object, how to treat its neighbours. The word ““shall”” could compel them to enter into a regime that creates a charging system, but which sets the charges at a ridiculously low level. My fear is that if we privatise the policing system so that an airport is enabled to set its own charging regime to fine its own customers, we are whistling in the wind—if it were possible to hear oneself whistle. Nottingham East Midlands airport has gone on record as saying, ““We want to attract lots and lots of aeroplanes all through the night because we want to sell ourselves as the freight hub of the midlands.””