I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in Clause 4, page 7, line 21, leave out from 'which' to end of line 22 and insert

'directly benefit those who live in the area, or under the flightpath, in which the aerodrome is situated and which appear likely to mitigate noise disturbance for persons who are affected by the relevant operations, and shall seek the advice and consent of the airport's consultative committee before any such spending takes place.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 38, in Clause 4, page 7, line 22, after 'area', insert

', or under the flight path,'.

No. 40, in clause 4, page 7, line 22, at end add

'and shall produce accounts listing where, when and how said money has been spent and shall publish these accounts.'.  

I will be quite brief, not only because I listened carefully to what you just said, Sir Nicholas, but because that was always my intention. Essentially, these amendments mirror for Clause 4 and the noise control schemes what the earlier amendments would have done for the penalty schemes under the earlier clauses. I will not waste any time on Amendment No. 38. I accept the Minister's assurance that ''area'' includes the flight path as normally defined.

I am only speaking briefly to amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which call on the committee to produce accounts of any money spent under the schemes. There is not a great deal that can be said afresh about the amendments that has not be said during discussions on earlier points.

The Conservative party is not a great one for arguing for regulation. We oppose huge quantities of regulation—I last attended a debate on deregulation yesterday—but if money is being taken off people in this way, it is reasonable for accounts to be published showing how it is spent and reasonable that there should be some discussion. The airlines, too, feel that that is right. I shall introduce the following quote from the British Airways brief as my one further comment:

''Airlines have never challenged . . . fines . . . and also because the amounts involved have been declining as airlines have renewed their fleets . . . these powers could easily create a conflict of interests where an aerodrome or the Secretary of State sets a limit or increases a fine so as to create a fund for local projects without cost to themselves.''

BA then calls for governance arrangements.

I can only repeat that we voted on amendment No. 7. I must warn the Minister that I am minded not to withdraw amendment No. 39. It is reasonable that where an aerodrome is establishing a noise control scheme, it should consult as to how any moneys are spent and publish some accounts. That is no more burdensome than the task of a parish council; indeed, it is probably less so.

I just want to clarify a point. I thought that when I moved an Amendment related to linking the spending of the fines on mitigating the noise impact, the hon. Gentleman said that he was not minded to support it because he did not think it appropriate to link the spending to tackling noise. However, it appears that with his amendment the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do exactly that. Perhaps he will explain whether I have misunderstood the purpose of the amendment.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on spotting the inconsistency. As he observed earlier, we are both dependant on outside bodies to assist us in drafting. I put my hands up on that small inconsistency.

The point that we are trying to make in the two amendments is that in this scheme, as with the earlier penalty schemes, there should be some consultation on spending the money and some accounts should be published. That is a far less burdensome requirement than the requirements on parish councils disposing of similar sums. I am certain that in practice most aerodromes will do that anyway. It is not unreasonable to ask them to do it in this case.  

Sir Nicholas, I will not strain your patience by repeating what I think of the broad thrust of the arguments that we have already heard. As the hon. Gentleman says, the overwhelming Majority of airports—if not all of them—will already be making some provision for how that money is spent and accounted for and will be engaging in consultation, because if that money is to be used for community benefit they will wish to ensure that they get the public relations benefit of allocating it.

We will not gain anything by agreeing the Amendment. I restate the argument that we had earlier today.

I am minded to press this Amendment to a vote. It seems extraordinary that a Government who have placed so many extra duties on every level of local authority—not least on parish councils, as I know that my own parish council struggles with them—should exempt those organisations from a much less burdensome requirement, which most of them satisfy.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands and agrees, however, that the requirement for even a small amount of public money to be accounted for has no equivalent in this case.

With respect, that argument seems to chase its own tail. The point made by several of us, including our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), was that the money should be public money as it comes from fining. The extraction of penalties is to be privatised, and it will then be argued that because the power to extract penalties from people has been privatised, the fines are no longer public money. We are dealing with sums of money comparable to those of parish councils, and we are asking for a requirement that any good airport operator would meet anyway. The requirement is not at all burdensome.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.