Air Navigation and Transport Bill, 1936—Committee (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I think Deputy McGilligan was discussing this section, or a particular sub-section in it when the House adjourned, on the last occasion that this matter was discussed. I had not the privilege of being present when Deputy McGilligan was speaking, but I understand he made a point which he is very anxious should be dealt with specifically by the Minister. Clause (c) provides:
No action or other legal proceedings whatsoever, whether civil or criminal, shall be instituted in any court in Saorstát Eireann in respect of the doing of anything authorised to be done by any such officer under this section, whether such thing is done personally or by a person acting in aid of or under the direction of such officer.
Deputy McGilligan emphasised that that introduces a new principle into the Constitution. It provides, apparently, that an irresponsible officer, who gives certain orders or takes admittedly illegal action may not be prosecuted either civilly or criminally. That, certainly, is a principle that this House should not subscribe to. Deputy McGilligan is very strongly against this clause, and I would like to hear from the Minister what justification there can be for the introduction of the radical proposals contained in it.
The justification is that the principle is well recognised. Section 2 of the Aerial Navigation Act, 1913, reads:—
"If an aircraft flies or attempts to fly over any area prescribed under this Act for the purposes of the defence or safety of the realm, or, in the case of an aircraft coming from any place outside the United Kingdom, fails to comply with any of the conditions as to landing prescribed by an order under the last foregoing section, it shall be lawful for any officer designated for the purpose by regulations made by the Secretary of State to cause such signal as may be prescribed by those regulations, to be given, and, if after such signal has been given the aircraft fails to respond to the signal by complying with such regulations as may be made by the Secretary of State prescribing the action to be taken on such a signal being given, it shall be lawful for the officer to fire at or into such aircraft and to use any and every other means necessary to compel compliance, and every and any such officer and every other person acting in his aid and by his direction shall be and is hereby indemnified and discharged from any indictment, penalty, action, or other proceeding for so doing."
The British Air Navigation Regulations provide exactly the same saver for the officer as is provided in the concluding portion of that section.
Moreover, as I pointed out to Deputy McGilligan when we were discussing this matter previously, the appropriate regulation in the Saorstát Regulations of 1930 is somewhat similar. Regulation 60, paragraph (2) reads:
No action or other legal proceedings whatsoever, whether civil or criminal, shall be instituted in any court of law or equity in Saorstát Eireann for, on account of, or in respect of any act, matter or thing authorised by the foregoing paragraph of this regulation to be done by any commissioned officer of the defence forces of Saorstát Eireann or by any other officer acting in aid of or under the direction of such officer.
"In any court" in the section, I am advised, has no application to a military court. Before an officer fires on an aircraft a number of conditions have got to be satisfied. A certain area has got to be declared a prohibited area. The aircraft will have to be flying towards or over the area which is a prohibited area. Certain signals which are recognised internationally have got to be ignored and only then is an officer to be entitled to fire. The area to be prohibited must be clearly one of great national importance, and any restriction on an officer's discretion to take the extreme action to enforce prohibition would involve very serious consequences. If an officer has got to consider that action may be taken against him later, then he is more likely to delay in taking the necessary steps to secure compliance with the order, and his inaction may mean the suffering of damage by the State out of all proportion to the damage done by the officer's action.
In the Sea Fisheries Protection Act, Section 7, designated officers are given powers to fire at a boat which is suspect after signals have been given, and a sub-section on exactly the same lines as paragraph (c) provides for their exemption from liability in the courts in respect of their action.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
The Saorstát is a party to the Paris Convention and is a member of the International Commission for Air Navigation set up under that convention. It is liable for a contribution towards its expenses. A contribution of £190 per annum is paid at present out of Vote 57, Industry and Commerce.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
There is in force a number of orders and regulations made by virtue of the powers conferred under the Air Navigation Act, 1920, and the repeal of the 1920 Act makes it necessary to provide for their continuance and their linking up under this Bill.
Question put and agreed to
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
The same necessity for continuance, as has been mentioned in connection with Section 15, applies in the case of certificates and licences granted in accordance with the regulations, etc., in force.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
Section 17 deals with the Warsaw Convention. The provisions of the Warsaw Convention are set out in the First Schedule to this Bill, and, therefore, so far as they relate to this Bill they will have the force of law in Saorstát Eireann. This convention provides for the adoption in the territories of the contracting States of uniform rules in regard to the following matters affecting the operations of air transport undertakings—(a) the issue of passenger and luggage tickets, (b) the issue of consignment notes and conditions under which the carriage of goods is undertaken, and (c) the liability of the carrier in respect to passengers' luggage and goods. The convention applies to all international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward or, in the case of an air transport undertaking, without reward. The convention was signed at Warsaw in 1929 and came into force on the 13th February, 1933.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Any liability imposed by Article 17 of the First Schedule to this Act on a carrier in respect of the death of a passenger shall be in substitution for any liability of the carrier in respect of the death of that passenger under any statute or at common law, and the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the persons by and for whose benefit the liability so imposed is enforceable and with respect to the manner in which it may be enforced, that is to say:—
(c) an action to enforce the liability may be brought by the personal representative of the passenger or by any person for whose benefit the liability is under paragraph (a) of this section, enforceable, but only one action shall be brought in Saorstát Eireann in respect of the death of any one passenger, and every such action by whomsoever brought shall be for the benefit of all such persons so entitled, as either are domiciled in Saorstát Eireann or, not being domiciled there, express a desire to take the benefit of the action.
I move amendment No. 2a:—
In paragraph (c), page 10, lines 53 and 54, to delete the word "domiciled" and substitute the word "resident".
The effect of this amendment is to extend to persons not domiciled in the Saorstát, but who are resident in the Saorstát, the benefit of any action taken to enforce the liability of the carrier in the event of the death of a passenger. We have introduced this amendment on the advice of a legal authority. Persons who are resident in the Saorstát, though not necessarily domiciled here, would be naturally presumed to be entitled to the benefit of our laws as residents, and the amendment effects that.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On the section, would the Minister say what is the measure of damages that will be given to the dependents of the family of a deceased civilian in respect to whom compensation is provided by the section? Is it such measure of damages as is provided under Lord Campbell's Act or such damages for funeral expenses, pain, suffering and general incidental losses, or is it merely confined to the question of dependency? The section does not appear to me too clear on that point.
The position as laid down in the convention is that the carrier is to be liable for damages in the event of the death, wounding, or other bodily injury of the passenger. He is liable also for the destruction, loss or damage of any registered luggage or any goods, or for any delay occasioning damage to passengers' luggage or goods. In the case of goods, the carrier is not liable if he proves that the damage was occasioned by negligent pilotage or negligence in the handling of aircraft, or in navigation. Then there is a certain limit to the liability of the carrier. In the case of passengers, the liability for each passenger is limited to a sum of 125,000 francs. In the case of registered luggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogram. It is limited to 5,000 francs per passenger in respect to objects in charge of the passenger himself. That is the extent of the convention. I do not know whether I have given sufficient information to the Deputy.
I think, perhaps, it may not be possible for the Minister to give the particular kind of information that I am looking for. The section merely provides for damages. There is, of course, a limitation in the convention as to the amount of damages. That has nothing to do with the point I am putting. Under Lord Campbell's Act, when death results from negligence, the damages are measured by the amount of dependency on the person killed by the person bringing the action. That is very often difficult to prove, and it is sometimes out of all proportion to the loss sustained. In the present section, nothing is said but that damages may be awarded. If any cases are brought under this section, there is bound to be a considerable discussion as to what the measure of damages should be. The framework of the section follows rather closely the procedure provided by Lord Campbell's Act. While we have control of the matter in the House, we should not allow any ambiguity to remain. Personally, I think that the provisions of Lord Campbell's Act with reference to ordinary negligence cases are entirely too restricted, and whether it would be wise to make a change in this respect is a matter to which the Minister should give consideration.
Under Section 18, the benefit of the liability, I am advised, is enforceable on the same lines as those on which members of the family of the deceased person may enforce a claim under Lord Campbell's Act. It applies only to civil liability and does not apply to criminal liability. Section 18 deals with the liability of a carrier in respect of the death of a passenger and provides that liability shall be confined, so far as international carriage is concerned, to his liability under the Warsaw Convention. The common law rules in respect of carriage have been modified and extended by statute both in regard to sea and land carriage. In the absence of any specific provision, it is to be assumed that the common law is to guide the aircraft owner as a carrier. For international purposes, the carrier's liability shall be determined by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention. It is with international carriage the present section deals.
Perhaps it is not fair that I should cross-examine the Minister on this rather technical topic, but it does not appear to be clear whether or not the liability of a carrier is confined to cases where he has been proved to be guilty of negligence or whether he is to be regarded as an insurer of his passengers' life and safety. If he is to be regarded as insurer of his passenger's life and safety, then his liability would be entirely different in law and in principle from the liability which exists where death arises as the result of negligence. So far as I can see, the carrier's liability for damages under this Bill is not dependent on negligence. If it were dependent on negligence, possibly the principles embodied in Lord Campbell's Act or the Fatal Accidents Acts would apply. If his liability is not based on negligence, it may be that these principles will not be applicable. I agree that the structure of this section is based on similar provisions in the Fatal Accidents Acts, but that would not be sufficient to make the matter clear.
I do not know whether it will be satisfactory if I tell the Deputy that liability is not confined to cases in which negligence is proved.
That makes it rather doubtful as to whether the principles of damage under Lord Campbell's Act would be applicable in this case.
I shall look into the matter before Report Stage.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 3:—
To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of Part III of this Act or any contract for the carriage of passengers or goods by air in so far as the contract provides for determining or limiting the liability of the carrier thereunder.
Part III of the Bill proposes to give the force of law in the Saorstát to the Warsaw Convention. This amendment is put down to make clear that nothing in this section affects the provisions of Part III.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person or, as the case may be, his estate shall not, in respect of loss or damage which, after the commencement of this Chapter of this Part of this Act, is caused on any one occasion to persons or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article or person falling from, any one aircraft while in flight, taking off, or landing, be liable to pay by way of damages an amount exceeding in the aggregate—
(2) Without prejudice to the operation of the next following sub-section, a person or, as the case may be, his estate shall not be entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1) of this section—
(a) in relation to any loss or damage attributable to his wilful misconduct or to such default on his part as is equivalent to wilful misconduct; or
(b) in relation to any loss or damage attributable to wilful misconduct on the part of any of his servants or agents, or to such default on the part of any of his servants or agents as is equivalent to wilful misconduct, unless he took all proper steps to prevent the loss or damage; or
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), line 27, to insert after the words "is caused" the words "without his actual fault or privity."
The purpose of Section 24 is to provide a limitation on liability for damage done to third parties on the surface. It is intended that the limitation shall not apply in circumstances where a certain degree of blame attaches to the person responsible for the damage. It is thought that this restriction on the benefit of the limitation in the case of aircraft owners should be applicable in the same circumstances as it is applicable in existing merchant shipping legislation to the limitation of liability of shipping owners. The principle in the Merchant Shipping Acts is that a person cannot lose the advantage of the limitation merely from negligence but may lose the advantage of the limitation if there is something more than mere negligence. The words used are "actual fault or privity," and these are the words which we propose to insert in this section.
This imposes a liability on owners in the event of their having been held to be grossly negligent?
It is the same principle which we sought to have accepted in connection with Section 13?
That is an entirely different matter.
We pointed out to the Minister on that occasion that while we would not complain if a certain exemption were conferred on officers acting under instructions, we strenuously objected to a provision which took no count of the officer's conduct when he perpetrated the act in respect of which it is proposed to initate civil or criminal proceedings. Now, the Minister sees the point in connection with that civil owner, and places a qualified liability on that civil owner, but so militarily-minded a man is he that, when dealing with an officer of the Army, he said he was not prepared to allow any liability, good, bad or indifferent, to attach. I cannot see the logic of these two positions.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (2), to delete lines 50 to 58 (both inclusive).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
Before sub-section (7), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of Part III of this Act or any contract for the carriage of passengers or goods by air in so far as the contract provides for determining or limiting the liability of the carrier thereunder.
This amendment is somewhat similar to amendment No. 3. Its object is to make clear that nothing in this section affects the provisions in Part III. Amendment No. 5 was consequential on this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand Part of the Bill.'
Have any inquiries been made from the insurance offices as to what sort of liability will be involved by this obligatory third party insurance?
I understand there are only one or two insurance companies in this country which are open to take this class of business. I do not think that any inquiries have been addressed formally to the insurance companies here.
This would not have any connection with Lloyd's?
Not the kind of connection that the Deputy thinks, anyway.
In fact, there are only two or three companies outside Ireland which do this business, and one of them is Lloyd's.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 26 to 28, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
(3) When a certificate of security has been issued to any person by the Minister under this section, and the deposit made by such person with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice at the time such certificate was granted, has been reduced or has ceased to be maintained, the Minister shall revoke such certificate.
I move amendment No. 7:—
To delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following sub-section—
(3) Where—
(a) a certificate of security has been issued to any person by the Minister under this section, and
(b) either—
(i) the amount, stated in a notice of deficiency given to such person by the Accountant of the Courts of Justice in pursuance of the provisions of this Chapter of this Part of this Act relating to payment of judgment debts out of deposit, has not, within 14 days after such person has received such notice, been deposited with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice, or
(ii) the deposit made by such person at the time such certificate was granted has ceased to be maintained,
the Minister shall revoke such certificate.
Under Section 29 (3), as it stands in the Bill at present, it is provided that
"where a certificate of security has been issued to any person ....and the deposit made by such person....at the time such certificate was granted has been reduced or has ceased to be maintained, the Minister shall revoke such certificate."
In sub-section (5) of Section 31 provision is made that if a deposit is reduced in satisfaction of a judgment debt a period of 14 days from receipt of the notice from the Accountant of the Courts of Justice is to be allowed without forfeiture of existing rights. The present amendment makes it clear that (3) of 29 does not conflict with (5) of Section 31, by requiring the Minister to do immediately what he is not required to do until after 14 days in sub-section (5) of Section 31. The amendment now proposed effects this purpose.
Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
(1) Any person who is the owner of not more than two aircraft and who desires to become an exempted person may deposit and keep deposited with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice a sum equal to the maximum sum determined in relation to such aircraft by sub-section (1) of Section 23 (which relates to limitation of liability for damage caused by aircraft to persons and property on land or water) of this Act.
(2) Any person who is the owner of three or more aircraft and who desires to become an exempted person may deposit and keep deposited with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice a sum equal to the aggregate of the two greatest of the several maximum sums determined under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of this Act in relation to those aircraft respectively.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-sections (1) and (2), to delete the figures "23" where they occur in lines 31 and 38 and to substitute the figures "24".
This amendment rectifies an incorrect reference to a preceding section.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 31, 32 and 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34.
I move amendment No. 9:—
Before Section 34 to insert the following heading—
CHAPTER II
Provision in relation to the Rome Convention.
Under this Bill, as it stands at present, there is provision for implementing the Rome Convention as contained in Chapter II of Part IV of the Bill. Chapter II contains provision for compulsory insurance which should be enforced in the municipal law of the Saorstát and it provides that this Chapter shall come into operation on some future date to be fixed by order of the Minister. This amendment means that if we find it necessary or desirable to bring the Rome Convention into operation in the Saorstát there should be power to bring it into operation. It is taken out of Chapter II and brought into Chapter III, which may be brought in separately.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
Before Section 34 to insert a new section as follows:—
This Chapter of this Part of this Act shall come into operation on such day as may be fixed therefor by order of the Minister.
This amendment is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (1) (a) to delete in line 26 the words "preceding provisions" and substitute the words "provisions of Chapters I and II", and to delete in line 27 the words "said preceding provisions" and substitute the words "provisions of the said Chapters I and II."
As there is nobody who understands what amendment No. 11 means, I suppose we had better disagree with it. I certainly do not understand it.
It has to do with the setting up of a new Chapter in the Bill. The new Chapter consists of one section—provision in relation to the Rome Convention.
I said that as the Bill stood it was considered that the Rome Convention need not be brought into operation in the Saorstát until Part IV of the Bill was brought into operation. This alteration in the setting out of the Bill enables the Rome Convention to be brought into operation.
Amendment No. 11 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Where an Order is made under the immediately preceding sub-section before the commencement of Chapter II of this Part of this Act, the said Chapter II shall, for the purposes of the said sub-section but not further or otherwise, be deemed to be in force.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That Section 35 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 35, I wish to say that this is the section opening with the part of the Bill which confers upon the Minister for Industry and Commerce powers to acquire land compulsorily. Rumour has circulated that the Ministry had in mind the intention of acquiring part of the Phænix Park for use as an aerodrome. If that idea has occurred to the Minister's mind then I think precaution should be taken in this part of the Bill to divest the Minister of any rights which he may appear to have to do any such thing. It would be an outrage on the City of Dublin if any part of the Phænix Park were adapted for aeroplane purposes. I would be glad if the Minister would make a statement now as to what the opinion of the Executive Council is on that matter.
As an inter-departmental committee was examining the question when I last dealt with this matter in the House. I did not think it proper to prejudge their decision or recommendation. I can now state that the inter-departmental committee have not reported in favour of the Phænix Park as a site and, though the Government have not taken the final decision, I think it is most unlikely that the Phænix Park will be acquired as a site.
It fills me with alarm that the Executive Council has allowed such a matter to come under the attention of an inter-departmental committee. Such a matter could not possibly be considered by an inter-departmental committee unless it was placed before them by the responsible Minister. I think it will come as a very great shock to a number of persons that the Minister for Industry and Commerce at any time considered the possibility of allowing commercial or other interests to override the interest of the citizens of Dublin in this matter. I do not think any inter-departmental committee should have authority to discuss such a question at all. In view of the fact that the Minister admits that this matter has been discussed on his authority, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that we should take steps between now and the Report Stage, to amend this Bill so as to make sure that the Minister or any successor of his, will not have a right to take any part of the Phænix Park for the purposes of a commercial aerodrome or for any other purposes, good, bad or indifferent.
In order to ease the Deputy's mind, I should like to say that the choice of a site from the point of view of suitability was the question with which the committee dealt. No Government Department recommended that the Phænix Park should be taken for such a purpose.
Is the position not still as it was before, or as it was when this inter-departmental committee considered the Phænix Park? Even if that committee were functioning still the Phænix Park is ruled out by them. Even though the Government rules it out now is it not a fact that as this Bill stands the Government has the power to consider and adapt the Phænix Park as a site for an aerodrome, and Deputy Dillon's point, as I take it, is that they should be ruled out altogether from taking the Phænix Park?
Yes, I think they should be so ruled out. Let them bring in a new Bill if they want to take the Phænix Park.
There are plenty of place around Dublin suitable for an aerodrome without interfering with the Phænix Park.
As I have already explained to the House, there is no question of interfering with the Phænix Park.
As to the point raised by Deputy Dillon, I agree that the Minister should not have power, without bringing in a further Bill here, to touch the Phænix Park. In other words, it should be definitely ruled out in plain language in this Bill. I join with Deputy Dillon in asking the Minister to consider an amendment on those lines on the Report Stage.
I support the suggestion that there should be no possibility of the Government's having any power in this Bill to interfere with the Phænix Park at any time for the purpose of an aerodrome. I think the Minister ought to exclude it and assure the House and the people of Dublin that, by Act of Parliament, it is definitely excluded for all time.
When the Government gives an assurance that there is no intention to interfere with the Phænix Park, and when there is no provision in the Bill dealing with the Phænix Park, I do not think an amendment is necessary.
The Minister gives an assurance that there is no present intention of interfering with the Phænix Park. We very much appreciate that assurance. Now we go on and say, in view of the fact that there is no present intention to interfere with the Phænix Park, that the Government should have no objection to an amendment on the Report Stage specifically excluding from the general powers conferred for compulsory acquisition in this Bill the area of the Phænix Park, so as to ensure that if, hereafter, this Government or their successors in office changed their mind and determined that they were going to interfere with the Phænix Park, they would have to come back to this House and pass a Bill giving them authority to deal with it. If the Bill is left in its present state, a subsequent Government could acquire the Phænix Park without any further reference to this House. The present Government do not want to acquire the Phænix Park. Then it cannot embarrass the present Government to accept a short amendment providing that, notwithstanding Section 35, the Minister shall have no power to acquire any part of that area known as the Phænix Park for the purposes of the Bill. Will the Minister accept an amendment along these lines on the Report Stage?
No, because I think the idea of acquiring the Phænix Park, when it is already the property of the Board of Works, is rather ridiculous. If the Deputy wants to prevent some future Government from taking the Phænix Park, if they so desire, I suggest that there would be ample opportunity of raising the question when that circumstance arises.
What is the use of dragging in the Board of Works?
Because they are responsible for the Phænix Park. I do not know what the legal position is at the moment, but I always understood it was their property.
Does the Minister suggest that the Government have, through the Minister for Finance, the right to use the phænix Park as an aerodrome?
There is no question of acquiring it.
The Minister says: "There is no question of acquiring it because we have it already. If we want to use it we can, because it belongs to us."
What did the Minister drag in the Board of Works for?
Because the Deputy talked about acquiring it. In any case, the section he is speaking on deals with acquisition by local authorities.
Section 35 reads as follows:—
The purposes of this part of this Act for which land may be acquired by agreement or compulsorily shall include—
(a) the purpose of securing that the land adjacent to an aerodrome which the Minister or a local authority has established or is about to establish shall not be used in such manner as to cause interference with, or danger or damage to aircraft at, approaching, or leaving the aerodrome...
That is the introductory section to Part V of the Bill, which deals with the compulsory acquisition of land for the purposes of this Bill. The Minister now says that the acquisition of the Phænix Park cannot arise in this connection, because it is already the property of the Board of Works. Does that mean that the Minister is advised that the Phænix Park, being the property of the Board of Works, can be used for the purposes of this Bill without any compulsory acquisition taking place? If so, in view of the fact that the Minister informed us that it is not the Government's intention to use the Phænix Park for the purpose, will he accept an amendment on this part of the Bill setting out expressly that no part of the area known as the Phænix Park shall be used for any purpose of this Bill? Then, if subsequently he or his successor in office desires to use the Phænix Park for the purpose of an aerodrome, whether the Board of Works own it or not, the Minister will have to come to the House and ask the leave of the House to do so.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 36.
(1) The Minister may and any local authority may, with the consent of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may imposes, establish and maintain aerodromes and provide and maintain in connection therewith roads, approaches, apparatus, equipment, and buildings and other accommodation.
(2) A local authority which maintains an aerodrome under this section shall have power to carry on in connection with such aerodrome any subsidiary business certified by the Minister to be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (1), line 8, to insert after the words "the Minister" the words "given after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health."
This amendment is to bring in the consent of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. As he is responsible for local authorities, it is thought that the approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in connection with the establishment or maintenance of an aerodrome by a local authority should only be given after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (1), line 10, to insert after the word "roads" the word "bridges".
This is merely a verbal amendment.
Will Section 36 give the Minister power to establish and maintain an aerodrome in the Phænix Park?
I submit, Sir, that the question does not arise.
The Deputy dragged it into the debate after he has been told that there is no intention whatever of interfering with the Phænix Park, or of taking any action about it under this Bill.
Will there be anything in the Bill to prevent, say, the Dublin Corporation, with the consent of the Minister for Local Government, proceeding to establish an aerodrome in the Phænix Park? I do not see anything in the Bill which would preclude them from doing it. If the present Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce are opposed to establishing an aerodrome in the Phænix Park, why should they be opposed to putting it in the Bill?
If the Deputy puts down an amendment, the matter may then be discussed. This discussion is in the air. There is no proposal before the House to acquire the Phænix Park. Indeed, the Minister says there is no intention to take over the Phænix Park or any part thereof.
He admitted that there was a proposal.
I did not, except in the Deputy's mind.
In the inter-Departmental deliberations.
As to the sincerity of the Minister's promise, is he not prepared to protect the Phoenix Park from being used as an aerodrome, to protect it not from himself, but from his successor? Neither he nor his Government has the right to appoint their successors. If it is desirable that the Phænix Park should be preserved as it is and that an aerodrome should not be established there, why not secure that in the Bill? If his successor thinks differently, let him come to this House and put his cards down.
A debate has been inaugurated on the question of the acquisition of the Phænix Park. The question does not arise.
I submit that this is strictly in order. Section 36 provides that the Minister may establish and maintain an aerodrome. The acting Minister says that the Executive Council and the Board of Works own the Phænix Park. I reply: "Very well, then, if you want Section 36 giving you the right to maintain an aerodrome everywhere you want one, I will not give it to you unless you consent to introduce on Report Stage an amendment prohibiting you from erecting an aerodrome in the Phænix Park. If you will not give me that undertaking, then I will not give you the right to erect any aerodrome at all."
It would be equally relevant, or rather irrelevant, to argue against the right to erect aerodromes at Kilbride, Gormanstown and numerous other places.
Because we are not specially solicitous about those other places.
There are people, for instance, who would be solicitous about the National Park in Killarney.
Very well, let them speak up now.
It is unnecessary, because as a corollary to not considering the Phænix Park we are considering the provision of another site for an aerodrome. I think that even Deputy Dillon will recognise that if we are going to have one aerodrome within a very short distance of Dublin it will be quite unnecessary to have a second aerodrome in the Phænix Park, even for a future Government.
Has a site been definitely decided on?
Then the whole thing is in the melting pot until a decision has been arrived at.
A decision will be made very quickly, and the Deputy will hear all about it shortly.
But the Deputy will not have any say in the matter after this Bill has been passed by the Dáil.
If a decision is made before the Report Stage of the Bill is taken, will it be communicated to the House?
Not necessarily. But I will try to do that.
Even that would not be binding.
We will put down an amendment between this and Report Stage, and if the Minister does not give us the information in the interval then we will press the amendment to a division.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
To delete sub-section (2).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 16:—
Before Section 37 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) If the Minister is satisfied, with respect to any aerodrome maintained by a local authority under the immediately preceding section, that it is necessary or expedient that such local authority should be empowered to carry on in connection with such aerodrome any particular business, being a business which appears to him to be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome, but which such local authority would not otherwise have power to carry on, he may by order authorise such local authority, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in such order, to carry on that business in connection with such aerodrome.
(2) The Minister may by order under this sub-section revoke or amend an order made under this section, including this sub-section.
(3) The Minister shall before making an order under this section consult the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in regard thereto.
Section 36 in the Bill at present is a re-enactment of a section in the Air Navigation Act of 1920. The interpretation of that 1920 provision has been found to be that if a particular local authority applies to the Minister for permission to carry on some ancillary business, such as the supply of oil or petrol, in respect of a particular aerodrome, and that such permission was given to that particular authority, then automatically it would give permission to all authorities which had aerodromes to carry on a similar business. That was not the intention, and where permission is to be given to a local authority to carry on an ancillary business, the effect of the amendment will be to restrict that particular authority.
What sort of ancillary business has the Minister in mind? Is it the selling of petrol, oil and the running of buses?
The selling of petrol and oil, or the doing of repairs.
Will they also be allowed to run buses from the aerodrome? Will this amendment operate to set aside the Road Traffic Act in so far as it confines passenger transport to the Great Southern Railways Company and other authorised undertakers by allowing a local authority to operate buses between an aerodrome and the centres of population?
It covers buses, I take it, as an ancillary business, but I do not say that it defeats the purpose of the Road Transport Act.
This is very nice question. The State set up a scheme under the Road Transport Act, in consideration of which certain road transport companies in this country have laid out immense sums of money in compulsorily acquiring other road transport services. They did that on the understanding that they were to have a virtual monopoly of road transport. Now you are establishing an aerodrome under the patronage of the Minister or a local authority. It is to be observed that this new sub-section will be passed after the Road Transport Act, presumably, with a view to repealing the Road Transport Act in so far as that Act conflicts with the later measure. You are going to confer on a local authority the right to operate buses to carry passengers from the centres of population to the aerodrome whence the aeroplanes fly. What is to prevent it operating a daily service of buses between the aerodrome, the suburbs of Dublin and Cork, Galway and Belfast? I grant that it is the only air service operating in Saorstát Eireann and is, therefore, entitled to collect all the passengers it can, book them and deliver them safely at the aerodrome. If this goes through, the thing will become very much like Clery's excursions, that you will have persons travelling on the buses who have no intention whatever of availing of the air services. People who will have no intention whatever of travelling by air will undoubtedly avail of the road transport facilities provided by the local authority.
The position is that the Minister can make an order permitting a local authority to carry on this business under the Road Transport Act, but before doing so he would examine the question as to how it was going to affect the existing carriers. I suggest to the Deputy that, under present circumstances, it is more than likely that if a local authority wishes to have this business carried on it will make arrangements with the railway company to do it.
If I was a local authority I would set up at once and run a line of buses, and then sell it to the Great Southern Railways Company for £50,000.
And then start again, as some of them are doing at present.
The Minister has power over the local authority in the matter. It will first of all have to get an order from him.
Under the existing law, the aerodrome company could go to the Minister and say: "Look here, we require certain passenger transport facilities to serve our aerodrome. We have made this reasonable proposal to the Great Southern Railways or to the Dublin United Tramways Company, and we ask you to press the railway company or the tramway company to make available for us the reasonable facilities for which we ask at a reasonable fee. The Minister could perfectly easily insist on one or other of the monopolists of Irish transport accommodating the aerodrome." That is the procedure that would have to be adopted under the existing law. If this amendment is passed it will be, I hold, a direct breach of the understanding which was enshrined in the Road Transport Act, which was that new undertakings would not be established in this country, and that the Minister would not seek powers to establish new undertakings outside the scope of the Road Transport Act. Is it the Minister's intention and desire to go back on that arrangement? If it is not, should not a special exception be made in regard to these ancillary servises deliberately excluding road transport passenger activities?
Does not the Deputy realise that under the existing law the Minister has the power, if representations are made to him, to establish any services at any time? He is the sole judge as to whether the existing services are satisfactory to the public or not?
But not an ancillary transport service to an aerodrome. It must be set up under a road transport licence.
The Minister has complete discretion in the matter.
I know that we are moving very rapidly towards State socialism in this country, but still I would like to know under what particular brand of socialism we are operating at any given time.
The capitalist brand, although it may seem an anomaly.
There is State capitalism as well as State socialism, and of the two evils I think State capitalism is the greater. In my opinion this is a thoroughly unsound amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 37 stand part of the Bill."
I cannot allow Section 37 to pass with the word "acquiry", which makes its first appearance in Irish legislation. It is in line 36, page 19, and, strangely enough, the word "acquisition" appears five lines above that. Whatever genius thought out the word "acquiry" and inserted it, I do not know. It is not a misprint; it is a jeu d'esprit.
The Deputy having voiced his objection——
I must insist on an amendment for the next Stage.
I will bring the matter to the draftsman's notice.
Surely the Minister for Education is in a position to tell us whether the word "acquiry" belongs to the English language or not, without referring to the Parliamentary draftsman?
If it is left here, it will belong to the English language all right.
No; it may belong to the strange dialect which bureaucrats employ, but it certainly does not belong to the English language, and I suggest to the Minister that he should not yield his judgment in that matter to the Parliamentary draftsman. Perhaps I might suggest that he would retire from the position of Minister for Education and invite the Parliamentary draftsman to undertake his duty. I should be long sorry to see that catastrophe come upon him. The Minister will introduce an amendment on the next stage.
The draftsman has a good literary sense, in my opinion.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That Section 38 stand part of the Bill."
I suggest that Section 38 is open to criticism. "The Minister may... acquire by agreement any land." There is no indication as to whom the agreement is to be with.
With himself, as transpired yesterday on the Insurance Bill.
Why not acquire it compulsorily?
This is a re-enactment of the 1920 Act also, and the provisions of the Land Act apply. I presume that the point Deputy Moore has in mind is adequately covered.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 39.
(5) Nothing in this section shall authorise the Minister to acquire, use, or otherwise interfere with compulsorily under this section any land which at the date of the first publication of notice of the intention of the Minister to consider the making of a special order in that behalf belongs to an electricity, gas, or water undertaker and is used or authorised to be used by such undertaker for the purpose of his undertaking.
I move amendment No. 16 (a):—
In sub-section (5), page 20, line 19, to delete the word "an" and substitute the words "any railway".
The effect of the amendment is to exclude land belonging to a railway undertaking from the compulsory powers of acquisition conferred on the Minister. Sub-section (5) already excludes land belonging to an electricity, gas or water undertaking, and the exclusion in favour of railway property is in accordance with earlier legislation, but the land of a railway or any other undertaking may be acquired still by agreement.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (5), line 20, after the words "water undertaker" to insert the words "or harbour authority", and in line 21 to delete the words "for the purpose of his undertaking" and substitute the words "or harbour authority for the purpose of such undertaking or harbour as the case may be".
Will the Minister not see that land, the property of a port authority, should be excluded equally with land belonging to a railway concern? Will he not accept that amendment?
No. I think that normally it should be possible if this question arises to deal with it by agreement, but it may happen that compulsory powers will be necessary. That is as I am advised at present. Furthermore, we do not recognise that harbour authorities are quite in the same position as railway, electricity, or other undertakings.
I can hardly see the force of that view. Harbour authorities are circumscribed in their activities. The land is no good to them except it is adjacent to or in the harbour. They cannot move inland. The railways can have land inland. If harbour authorities are going to use certain land for the development of their trade as a port, I do not see any other undertaking that can put up as strong a case for being exempt from having their land compulsorily acquired as the harbour authorities. The Minister said that an agreement could be reached. Why could not an agreement be reached in the case of a railway or a gas undertaking or in the case of water authorities? I do not see the force of the argument at all. If the question of agreement arises and the air authorities consider certain land is very suitable, surely the question of agreement would have as much force in the circumstances of having this land excluded as in the circumstances of having it included, that is, if there is good faith between the parties. If the Minister considers agreement can be reached in the one case, he should consider that it can be reached in the other.
I quite sympathise with the Deputy's point of view, but the position is that we might find it extremely embarrassing in connection with the development of the transatlantic air service if we were to accept this amendment.
I do not want to adopt the attitude of not accepting the Minister's view. I would like, however, that he would elaborate that view so as to show the House his reason for exempting land the property of other undertakings and not exempting land the property of harbour authorities. I can see no reason. None is expressed in this Bill. The case for the harbour authorities sticking to whatever land they have around a harbour is overwhelming, whereas in the case of land belonging to a railway authority, if one field is suitable for an aerodrome the railway can get suitable land anywhere round about. In the case of the harbour authorities the area is very circumscribed. The Minister says that if this power is not preserved to the Minister or to the local authority it may affect the development of a transatlantic airport. There must be some reason before his mind when he says that and when he deliberately, by an amendment, excludes land the property of railways and still must maintain the right to acquire compulsorily any land the property of harbour authorities. The land that is worth their while to possess and that is of any use to harbour authorities is very limited in extent. Will the Minister give us any of his reasons?
I am sorry I cannot give the Deputy any further reasons. I think he himself will realise why it may be extremely embarrassing if in this large undertaking to which we are now setting our hands the Minister had not powers to acquire, in the event of failure to reach agreement, any land that may be necessary for such undertaking. It is absolutely essential that he should have full powers to acquire land in order to go ahead with the project as early as possible. I do not agree with the Deputy—although, as I have said, I have a certain sympathy with his point of view—that the harbour authorities are in the same category as gas or electricity undertakings or even railways. Gas and electricity undertakings are absolute necessities in the life of the public. If the Government interferes with them it is doing something very serious. I cannot see that interfering with the harbour authorities' land is on the same basis. With regard to the railway companies, we are moving in accordance with previous legislation— the Acquisition of Land (Allotment) Act, the Cement Act and the Slaughter of Cattle Act. In all those Acts there was definite exclusion in connection with railway property. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.
Would the Minister consider what he can do between this and the Report Stage?
I do not see that we shall have advanced any further to meet the Deputy's point of view. Knowing that those powers may be absolutely necessary, I cannot see any circumstances in which we could accept the amendment. We feel it is absolutely necessary that we should have full powers at the present time.
The Minister appreciates that those services are to some extent, and will be to an increasing extent, competitors. He is interfering for the benefit of one, and more or less embarrassing the other. While he gives to local authorities and reserves to himself the right to be undertaking authorities in establishing those aerodromes and those aerial services, he will not give the right to the harbour authorities to establish those aerodromes and carry on those aerial services. In those circumstances, I cannot see why the property of one trading company will not be protected from its competitor, when that trading company number one is not given the right to develop and exploit the other method of trading. I know that the harbour authorities in this country take a serious view of that, particularly the authority of the port of Dublin, which I think represents more than 50 per cent. of the trade of the country. The port authority of Dublin supports this amendment. I should like if the Minister would further consider it until the Report Stage, particularly because, since this amendment was drafted, there has come to light the Minister's amendment protecting the property of railways. That makes the case and the grievance of the Port and Docks Board of Dublin ever so much greater. The Minister quotes exemptions in other Acts passed here. As far as I am able to appreciate those Acts they hardly relate to parallel cases when we come to aerial navigation. The Minister is probably aware that the British Government is considering very sympathetically amendments put up to their Navigation Bill.
I think if the port of Dublin authorities are very moved in their minds about this matter they ought to come and talk to the Department about it. It is necessary that we should have those compulsory powers. We hope at the same time—it is only where it is absolutely necessary that those powers will be exercised—that the land may be taken over by agreement, but if it cannot be taken over by agreement I think the Deputy will realise that the Government must have powers to acquire it compulsorily. Otherwise they may be held up in a very serious way.
The Minister said that the port authorities should come and speak to the Ministry. I have no authority for saying this, but I am quite sure they would be delighted at the opportunity. I do not think the Ministry consulted them on this Bill.
Why should they consult the Dublin authority any more than any other authority?
I do not put it up as a special pleading for Dublin, but if any authority were to be consulted the authority of the port of Dublin should be consulted, because its trade easily represents more than the rest of the country. If the Dublin port authority were not consulted, I take it from the remark of the Minister that no port or harbour authority was consulted, and I do not think that was fair. I think they should have been consulted, and so does the Port and Docks Board. They do not think that the Minister or the Government should wait on them, but they hold that an opportunity of giving their views on this matter should be presented to them. The majority of that board would be much better people to put the views of the board than I am.
We are giving them an opportunity, and I will leave it in the Deputy's hands.
Let us understand what is the opportunity.
An opportunity to come and talk to the Department about this matter.
You will give them the opportunity of an interview?
Yes—not necessarily an interview with me personally.
I understand. That opportunity will be given before the Report Stage?
I presume the Report Stage will hardly be taken before the Dáil adjourns.
If possible, A Chinn Comhairle, we want to have this Bill before the Dáil adjourns. In the same way as the powers which we are now discussing are necessary, it is necessary that the other powers in the Bill, and the financial provisions of it in particular, should be carried into law. Otherwise, we should like to give the Dáil a greater opportunity of considering it; but it is rather urgent that this work should be gone on with, and I am advised that it is essential that we should have the sanction of the Dáil for the Bill before we can go ahead.
I do not think that the Dublin Port and Docks Board would wish to hold up the Bill for half-an-hour. If the Dáil is not meeting next week, it would be in the week after I presume that the Report Stage could be reached, if at all in this session. If an opportunity were given to the Port and Docks Board next week, I think it would meet the case.
I suggest that the Deputy might arrange that interview outside the House.
There need not be any delay in the matter. I wish to thank the Minister on behalf of the Board.
Amendment No. 17, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 39 and 40 agreed to.
SECTION 41.
(1) A local authority may, with the consent of the Minister, acquire land (either inside or outside the functional area of such local authority) for the purpose of this Part of this Act either by agreement or compulsorily under this Act and the Acts incorporated therewith.
(2) For the purpose of the acquisition of land by a local authority under this section, Sections 203, 214 and 215 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as amended by Section 8 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, and Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), shall apply as if those sections as so amended were herein re-enacted and made applicable to such local authority with and subject to the modifications made by this Act in the procedure under the said sections.
(3) A local authority may at any time, with the consent of the Minister, sell or let by public auction or private treaty in suitable lots any land acquired by such authority under this section.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (1), line 40, to insert after the words "consent of" the words "the Minister for Local Government and Public Health given after consultation with".
It is considered in this case also, as in a preceding amendment, that consent in cases where local authorities are involved should come from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. The actual consent in this case must come from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, subject to consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The same applies to amendment No. 21.
Amendment No. 18 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (2), line 46, to insert before the figures "214" the figures "210, 212, 213".
This amendment provides for further sections of the Public Health Acts and Local Government Act of 1925, which, we are advised, it is necessary to include.
Amendment No. 19 agreed to.
I think, Sir, that amendment No. 20 could be discussed at the same interview which we have been discussing.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (3), line 53, to insert after the words "consent of" the words "the Minister for Local Government and Public Health given after consultation with".
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 18.
Amendment No. 21 agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 42.
Question proposed: "That Section 42 stand part of the Bill."
What is the modification proposed here?
Section 203 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, restricts publication of advertisements of local authorities in this connection to certain months of each year, and Section 42 of this Bill removes the restriction and allows publication in any month. Under statute, the period of three weeks must still elapse between the publication of service and the notice.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 43.
Question proposed: "That Section 43 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister visualise for us a case that would come under Section 43? Is it not placing ordinary navigation in a subordinate position to aerial navigation altogether?
I am quite willing to listen to any representations of any authority which may be affected by this matter between now and the next stage of the Bill, Sir.
I observe, Sir, that Section 43 purports to confer upon the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Industry and Commerce after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture power to prohibit the exercise of any right of fishing in an estuary.
Yes, but I see no provision made for compensation. The right of fishing in an estuary may be worth £100,000. Surely it is not proposed to confer on the Minister for Industry and Commerce a power to prohibit fishing in a several fishery without compensation?
I do not think so, and I do not know why the Deputy assumes that there would not be fair compensation.
Because there is no provision in the section for giving compensation.
I shall consider that point, A Chinn Comhairle.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45.
If and whenever the execution of any works under this part of this Act involves the diversion, removal, or other interference with any public road or bridge, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(c) where a permanent new bridge is constructed by the Minister or by a local authority outside its own functional area, and such bridge confers substantially greater advantages on the public of any county or other borough, county, or urban district than the original bridge, by affording an improved means of communication or otherwise, the Minister shall certify the cost of such new bridge and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health shall certify what part of such cost in his opinion ought reasonably to be borne by the council of such county or other borough, county, or urban district, and thereupon a sum equal to the part so certified of such cost shall be raised by such council as part of the expenses of the maintenance of such county or urban roads (as the case may be) and shall be paid by such council to the Minister or such local authority (as the case may be);
I move amendment No. 22:—
In paragraph (c), page 21, lines 48 and 49, to delete the words "any county or other borough, county, or urban district" and to substitute the words "the county or other borough, county, or urban district in which it is constructed," and in paragraph (c), page 21, lines 59 and 60, to delete the words "such county or urban roads (as the case may be)" and to substitute the words "the road of which such new bridge is part", and in paragraph (d), page 22, lines 6 and 7, to delete the words "any county or urban district" and to substitute the words "the county or other borough, county, or urban district in which it is constructed".
This is a matter of slight complication. It was originally intended, in circumstances where two local authorities came together in connection with the establishment of an aerodrome, that the expense of maintaining new bridges established thereby would fall on the authorities concerned, and that the contributing authority would make a contribution towards the cost of maintenance. We are advised now that it is only the authority within whose functional area the bridge is constructed which could be called upon to make the contribution. That is our advice from the Local Government Department. I think it is solely because administrative necessities demand it that that is being sought.
Amendment No. 22 agreed to.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
The adoption of amendment No. 23 involves the deletion of Sections 46 and 47.
I move amendment No. 23:—
Before Section 46 to insert the following new section:—
(1) Where a local authority (in this section referred to as an undertaking authority) has established and maintains or proposes to establish and maintain an aerodrome under this Part of this Act, any authority (in this section referred to as a non-undertaking authority) which is another local authority, a conservancy authority, or a harbour authority, may agree with such undertaking authority to make to such undertaking authority, on such conditions as may be agreed upon between the two authorities and subject to the provisions of this section, a contribution towards the expenses incurred by such undertaking authority in or in relation to the establishment and maintenance of such aerodrome.
(2) An agreement under this section in relation to an aerodrome may be made by two or more non-undertaking authorities with an undertaking authority.
(3) An agreement under this section made between one or more non-undertaking authorities and an undertaking authority may incorporate a scheme for the management of the aerodrome to which the agreement relates through and by a committee of such undertaking authority, and in that case such scheme shall, where there is only one non-undertaking authority party to such agreement, provide that a specified number of the members of such committee shall be nominated by that non-undertaking authority or, where there are two or more non-undertaking authorities party to such agreement, provide that a number of such members specified in respect of each non-undertaking authority shall be nominated by such non-undertaking authority, and such scheme may empower such committee to do any act (including the institution of legal proceedings) in relation to the management of such aerodrome which such undertaking authority itself could lawfully do, and may provide for the application of the provisions of Section 58 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925) to such committee as if such committee were a county authority within the meaning of that section, and for the furnishing by such undertaking authority to such committee of the moneys necessary to meet their expenses.
(4) The contribution payable by a non-undertaking authority in pursuance of an agreement made under this section shall be either a fixed annual sum or a fixed proportion of the expenses of maintaining the aerodrome to which the agreement relates or partly one and partly the other, and shall be payable in such instalments and at such times as shall be set out in the agreement.
(5) No agreement made under this section shall come into force unless and until it has been sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
(6) When an agreement made under this section between one or more non-undertaking authorities and an undertaking authority comes into force it shall be binding and enforceable against each party to such agreement, and each such party and the committee of management (if any) shall have power to do all acts and to make all payments which are provided for in such agreement or in any scheme incorporated therewith.
It is thought desirable that encouragement should be given to co-operation by local authorities in providing aerodromes and landing grounds, and Sections 46 and 47 in the Bill at present provide that one local authority or a harbour or conservancy authority may contribute to the expenses incurred by another local authority in such work— that is Section 46—and for the setting up of a joint committee to administer the undertaking—that is Section 47. The new section effects the same purpose and is considered to be an improvement on the procedure involved. It is not intended that the Minister should compel local authorities to enter into such engagements with each other. It is entirely permissive as to whether a particular local authority will co-operate with another authority or not. It is provided that the joint committee which will be set up, and which is similar to the joint committee which we sometimes have in connection with mental hospitals, should be the committee of the particular authority which is undertaking the establishment of the aerodrome; but upon it there can be representatives from the contributing bodies. It is the object of the amendment to ensure that that will be so—that the committee will be the committee of the undertaking authority, but that the other authorities or other bodies will have representation on it.
Amendment No. 23 agreed to.
Sections 46 and 47, consequently, deleted.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
I presume the Minister can hardly accept amendment 24 in view of his holding out on the others, and so this also can be discussed at the interview.
SECTION 48.
(2) Any local authority (other than the council of a county) may borrow under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1933, for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by such local authority under this Part of this Act as if such purpose were a purpose for which such local authority is authorised to borrow under those Acts, but money borrowed for any such purpose shall not be reckoned as part of the debt of such local authority for the purposes of any limitation on borrowing imposed by those Acts.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (2), line 39, to delete the figures "1933" and substitute the figures "1931".
This is merely a verbal correction—to substitute the figures "1931" for the figures "1933".
Amendment No. 25 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25a:—
To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Loans may, for the purposes of this section, be made out of the local loans fund to a local authority.
This is to enable local authorities to borrow from the Local Loans Fund for the purpose of the establishment and maintenance of aerodromes.
Amendment No. 25a agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 49.
All expenses incurred by a local authority under this Part of this Act shall be defrayed—
(a) in the case of the council of a county, by means of the poor rate raised equally over the whole of their county (exclusive of any urban district included therein);
(b) in the case of the councils of the county boroughs of Cork and Waterford, the council of a borough (other than a county borough or the borough of Dun Laoghaire) or the council of an urban district, out of any rate or fund applicable for the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1933, in like manner as if they had been incurred for the purposes of those Acts.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In page 23, to delete line 51 and substitute the following:—"(exclusive of any borough or urban district included therein the council of which has made or is making contributions under the said Part in respect of an aerodrome established or about to be established in such county or in a county borough contiguous to such county)".
Section 49, as it stands at present, provides that where the council of a county incurs expenditure in connection with the establishment of an aerodrome, these expenses may be defrayed by means of the poor rate raised equally over the whole of that county, excluding any urban districts included therein. The intention is that exemption from the levy of the poor rate should apply only in the cases of the local authorities which have contributed or are contributing to the establishment of an aerodrome. So that there will be no exemption from the poor rate levy except in the case of local authorities which are contributing to the establishment of the aerodrome.
Amendment No. 26 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 24, line 6, to delete the figures "1933" and substitute the figures "1931".
This is merely an alteration in figures.
Amendment No. 27 agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
Section 50 agreed to.
SECTION 51.
(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the granting, under any Act passed (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by the Oireachtas, of a lease or licence, in respect of any land which is State land and to which such Act applies, to a local authority or the acceptance of such lease or licence by a local authority.
(2) The Minister may for the purposes of this Part of this Act by order enclose any State land and any such State land may be used by the Minister for any purpose for which land acquired by him under this Part of this Act may be used.
(3) In this section the expression "State land" means land which for the time being belongs to Saorstát Eireann either by virtue of Article 11 of the Constitution or by any other means (present or future) whatsoever.
I move amendment No. 28:—
Before Section 51 to insert a new section as follows:—
Any local authority may, subject to the provisions of any enactment relating to the appointment of officers by such local authority, appoint such and so many officers as it shall think requisite for the execution of the powers conferred on it by this Part of this Act, and every officer so appointed shall be paid such remuneration as such local authority shall, with the consent of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, determine.
The establishment and maintenance of aerodromes by local authorities may render necessary the employment by the local authority of additional staff, and the purpose of the amendment is to enable them to do so.
Amendment No. 28 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28a:—
In sub-section (1), page 24, lines 17 and 18, to insert before the words "a local authority" the words "the Minister or".
The effect of the amendment is to ensure that nothing in the Act shall prevent the Minister from taking a lease or licence in respect of State land. Sub-section (1) already makes a similar provision in the case of the local authority.
I object to the amendment of the section, Sir.
Amendment No. 28a agreed to.
I object to the amendment, Sir. The section, as amended, reads in sub-section (2) as follows:—
"The Minister may for the purpose of this Part of this Act by order enclose any State land in respect of which he is authorised by law to grant leases and licences and any such State land may be used by the Minister for any purpose for which land acquired by him under this Part of this Act may be used."
That sub-section clearly would prevent the submission of an amendment prohibiting the use of the Phænix Park for the purpose of an aerodrome, because the first sub-section of that section says: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the granting," etc., etc.
Subsequently to insert an amendment providing that there was an express prohibition on the Minister from enclosing, for the purposes of this Act, lands which he was entitled to lease would conflict with Section 51, as amended, and would, therefore, be presumably out of order. I do not know whether the Phæ;nix Park is a State land or not. I take it that the Curragh of Kildare is State land. The Minister says the Phæ;nix Park is vested in the Board of Works. If that is so, it must be State land, too. Can the Minister say whether it is State land within the meaning of this section?
If the Deputy puts down the amendment he has promised, we can go into the whole question.
Surely the Minister is in a position to tell us what he refers to when he speaks of State lands.
The Curragh is imperial land.
Will the Minister tell us what State land is within the meaning of this section?
——the expression "State land" means land which for the time being belongs to Saorstát Eireann either by virtue of Article 11 of the Constitution or by any other means (present or future) whatsoever.
Has the question of the Phæ;nix Park arisen again?
It is a Royal park. Do you know what that is?
Do you mean that it belongs to His Majesty the King?
It did belong to King Charlie the Second.
And it now belongs to the State?
While we are on the question of State lands, amendment No. 29a should come in.
I am very pleased to defer my observations until the section is put.
I move amendment No. 29a:
In sub-section (2), page 24, line 20, to insert after the words "State land" where they first occur the words "in respect of which he is authorised by law to grant leases and licences."
The effect of this amendment is to confine the Minister's powers of enclosure of State land for the purposes of this Act to State land over which he has definitely power to grant leases or licences—for example, foreshores. Sub-section (2) as it stands comes into conflict with a number of local Acts, and it is thought better to restrict the powers of enclosure as provided. Where it is desired to acquire land over which a Minister other than the Minister for Industry and Commerce has got power of leasing, the assumption is that it will be got by agreement between the Ministers concerned.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 51, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Is the Minister in a position to tell us whether the definition of State lands contained in sub-section (3) covers the Phæ;nix Park in the light of the fact that Deputy Tom Kelly says it is a Royal park? I do not think there are any Royal parks remaining in this country. They have all been transferred to the State by virtue of Article 11 of the Constitution.
No, I cannot. I should like to get legal advice on the question.
The Minister has his advisers at hand.
That will not satisfy the Deputy, I am quite sure.
I can assure the Minister that his advisers command my complete confidence.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Holohan, Richard.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and T. Crowley; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 52.
No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of aircraft over any property at a height above the ground, which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case, is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of the flight, so long as the provisions of Part II of this Act and any order made under the said Part II and any regulations made by virtue of any such order are duly complied with.
I move amendment No. 29:—
Before Section 52, but in Part V, to insert a new section as follows:—
Nothing in this Act shall deprive the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs of any rights and remedies under the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1928, or any statutory adaptation thereof or substitution therefor made by or under the authority of the Oireachtas.
This amendment is a mere saver, and appears in all transport legislation, in respect of the powers of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
Amendment agreed to.
You have carefully preserved the rights of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs by this amendment. Is there any precedent for the relief from actions for trespass or nuisance provided for in this section?
There is another amendment to the section to be dealt with.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In line 33 to delete the words "the flight" and substitute therefor the words "a bona fide flight from one place to another”.
The purpose of this amendment is not to interfere in any way with flying from one place to another, but it is quite conceivable that people having residences close to an aerodrome might be subjected to considerable annoyance by trial flights, lasting only for a short time, but continually in one direction, and possibly flying very low and at odd hours of the day or night. The purpose is not to infringe on the rights of people making bona fide flights, but to leave ordinary householders with some rights, where they might be subjected to annoyance by a practice being made of having flights over houses at odd hours during the day or night. I would ask the Minister if he can see his way to accept the amendment.
I am advised that the circumstances which the Deputy has in mind are covered by the section as it stands. "No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance by reason only of the flight of aircraft over any property". It is considered that it would be extremely difficult to define what is bona fide flying and that, in any case, the section as it stands covers the difficulty which the Deputy has in mind. No matter what definition is accepted, I think the Deputy will agree that when the question comes to be judged it will probably have to be decided on the circumstances of the particular case. It would be almost impossible to foresee the circumstances. I think the matter can be decided, as I have said, should the question arise, under the section as it stands.
The Minister seems to suggest that my fears are absolutely groundless. I wish he had elaborated that and that he would show in what respect a person who is subject to considerable annoyance by what one might describe as stunt flying over his house has redress. I cannot see what difficulty the Minister has in finding out what bona fide flying is. Surely a bona fide flight would be a flight from one definite place to another. The amendment is really intended to cover persons who go up from an aerodrome and return to the same aerodrome. If the Minister wished to safeguard the rights of the ordinary individual I think he could easily manage it. Certainly I should like him to elaborate what remedy is open to people who are subjected to annoyance of the type to which I have called attention. Apparently he is merely relying on the fact that those people would have to bring some one into court and prove a whole lot of facts that it would be very difficult to establish. I feel that this is only one more instance where the ordinary citizen is being deprived of any rights he has. I think the position of the ordinary citizen should be more clearly defined under this section.
I am informed that stunt flying and low flying are prohibited under the existing regulations. I think also that the section as at present drafted covers the circumstances which the Deputy has in mind, but I shall look further into the matter.
Would the Minister tell me why do we, by statute, take away from a citizen the right to sue for a nuisance in respect of activities which may be carried on at an aerodrome? Suppose land were acquired near my house for an aerodrome and that aeroplanes start arriving and departing from that aerodrome. The noise becomes intolerable and I can no longer maintain residence there. Have I simply to draw my stumps and go away somewhere else to live? Why should I not be entitled to sue the authority responsible for the aerodrome and to recover from that authority such compensation as a court of justice shall deem equitable? Provision was made in the Railways Act for compensation for nuisances of certain kinds. I do not know whether there was any provision made for compensation arising from noise but I cannot see any ground why my property should be destroyed by a nuisance created by an aerodrome adjoining without leaving me some remedy against the person who is responsible for that nuisance. I cannot think of any circumstances in which a local authority would be allowed to create such a nuisance as would interfere with a person in the enjoyment of his property without that local authority being obliged to compensate for it. Mind you, I deplore the rapidity with which this legislation is being rushed through the House. I do not know why it is being done. It is manifest to Deputies that this Bill is receiving no adequate consideration at all. Any flaws in it will have to be dealt with in an amending Bill. It is not being adequately discussed now.
This is supposed to be the code under which aeronautics will be controlled in this country for a considerable time but nobody seems to have any thought at all for what may happen in the immediate future. It is quite possible, with the development of gyroplanes, or whatever they are called, that in ten years' time you may have aeroplanes dropping where they wish and that you will no longer have the picture of an aerodrome built up in a rural area with a long open space to provide for a gradual approach. It is quite possible that you may have aeroplanes coming to earth in the middle of a town. It may well be that in a comparatively confined space like Mountjoy Square you may have aeroplanes descending and ascending periodically. Picture the position of an unfortunate householder in Mountjoy Square with upwards of 20 aeroplants descending and ascending in that square with all the noise that aeroplane engines make. It is argued that a person who takes a house in Mountjoy Square is to have no claim for nuisance against the persons who are responsible for bringing these aeroplanes there? Why should he be put in a different position from anybody else? I do not think that Section 52, even with the moderate amendment suggested by Deputy Dockrell, can be justified. I think the average citizen ought to have the right to go to court and recover compensation for any damage accruing to his property by reason of the activities of aeroplanes in the vicinity. I should be glad to hear from the Minister what reason he has for maintaining that an aerodrome authority should be rendered immune by statute from the ordinary law relating to nuisance which governs the activities of the ordinary citizen of the State.
I contend that there is nothing to prevent the ordinary citizen recovering damages for nuisance created by reason of the flying of aircraft in unreasonable circumstances. When railway transport was first introduced this question arose. It must have created a great deal of trouble, possibly even more than aircraft as we know it at present, from the point of view of trespass and the disturbance of amenities. It was recognised that railway transport should be permitted in the public interest and that certain facilities should be granted to the companies who were developing it. In the same way I see no reason why we should not grant facilities to persons who are carrying on flying in an ordinary reasonable way. The section states that "no action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance by reason only of the flight of aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case, is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of the flight, so long as the provision of Part II of this Act and any Order made under the said Part II and any regulations made by virtue of any such Order, are duly complied with". Regulations have been made from time to time and are in force. I have indicated to the Deputy that stunt flying and flying at low altitudes are forbidden. The Minister can, I take it——
You must fly at a low altitude if you are going to land.
The Minister can strengthen the regulations if he wishes. If it is necessary for him to take further steps in order to ensure that the public will be safeguarded, he can do so. In the Deputy's absence, when this Bill was on its Second Stage, I explained that it was mainly a re-enactment of the provisions of the 1920 Act. This provision, like most of the other provisions, is contained in that Act, the reason being that, since the flying of aircraft even at a considerable height over a person's land or property would constitute trespass, it would be unreasonable that every person affected in this way should have the right to take an action for trespass provided the persons flying acted reasonably in every other way. Section 9 of the 1920 Act provided that no action should lie in respect of trespass or nuisance by reason only of the flight of aircraft over any property at a reasonable height and in accordance with regulations. In regard to air regulations in general, we are keeping pace in this Bill with the regulations and procedure in other countries but, as I have assured Deputy Dockrell, if, on examination, we find that further safeguards should be introduced we shall have no hesitation in introducing an amendment.
I am obliged to the Minister for that assurance, but the Minister must not imagine that, because he can make regulations to prevent people flying too low, my difficulty will be met. He cannot make a regulation requiring an aeronaut to land from a height of 2,000 feet without first coming down. Even a Ministerial regulation will not achieve that. It is in the process of coming down that I imagine a nuisance may be created. I fully see that the ordinary common law relating to nuisances might not be applicable to this case. I do not think that we should allow a citizen to apply for an injunction to prohibit the use of an aerodrome once this House has declared that an aerodrome should be put in that place, but I should like to give that citizen a qualified remedy for nuisance entitling him to sue, not for an injunction, but for assessment of damages against the aerodrome authority. In the complicated conditions of modern society, it is necessary to require citizens to accommodate their personal convenience to the common good, and it is regrettably necessary at times to ask them to remove their residences if they are not prepared to accept the new conditions which modern society imposes upon them. Why, I ask, is a citizen, finding himself under the obligation to change his residence or leave his land, as a result of nuisance arising from the normal use of an adjoining aerodrome, not to be entitled to recover from that aerodrome authority such sum as will make it possible for him to transfer his place of residence without serious loss? I think the Minister should go that distance. It does not matter what is in French, German or American statutes. If a qualified remedy is not available for that nuisance in these statutes, it should be available in our statutes. There is no use in quoting French, German or American Acts of Parliament. If they have not got that provision, I think they are bad Acts of Parliament. Let us pass a good Act of Parliament.
People who have not previously seen a train are, as a rule, terribly afraid that it will bring very serious consequences upon them if they find themselves in its vicinity for the first time. People who are not acquainted with aircraft may have an unreasonable fear of such craft. Thousands of people in all parts of the world have to do with aircraft every day, and millions of people have to live in the vicinity of aerodromes. In this country we are going ahead with aviation development and, while we must provide all reasonable safeguards in our legislation for the population, we certainly should not go out of our way to place obstacles in the path of ordinary aviation development. So long as aircraft is flying at a reasonable height—that is, I contend, amply safeguarded—I do not think that the ordinary citizen will have any grouse or feel that he is being interfered with.
Let us suppose that the Minister had a residence on the outskirts of Dublin with a garden providing a six-feet clearance from the gable end of his house and extending some distance from his house, and that I came along, bought the adjoining property and set up a dirt track six feet from his drawingroom and bedroom windows. Suppose I ran motorcycle races around the dirt track and when the Minister came out to protest I said to him: "You are apparently unaccustomed to seeing motor-cycles. There is no danger. I undertake that the cycles will not run into your gable, that they will go round the dirt track." The Minister would reply: "I am not in the least alarmed; I am annoyed; the noise is deafening." I might advise him to get deafer eardrums. I might tell him that the horse and buggy was popular at one time and that people now ride motor bicycles. He would repair to a solicitor, who would send a letter to me stating that if I did not abate the nuisance of which Mr. Derrig, of such a place, properly complained, proceedings would be instituted against me. If the dirt-track proprietor were foolish enough to say that he would accept service of any documents which Mr. Derrig thought fit to issue, he would find himself mulcted in heavy damages and probably have an injunction enforced against him to prevent him from using the dirt track for racing at the gable of the Minister's house. If the Minister for Education has a right to recover damages for a nuisance of that kind, why should he not have a right to recover damages for a nuisance of an exactly similar kind from an aerodrome, which in the ordinary course is as noisy and as offensive as dirt-track racing. I admit he should not have power to remove the aerodrome authorities by injunction, but he should have power to recover from them such sum as would compensate him for the trouble of removing from the immediate vicinage of the aerodrome. There is no use in saying that this is the penalty of progress. Progress does not entitle us to hand over people's property to others or to take away the rights which equity and justice have conferred on citizens. It is because this section tends to do that that I object to it.
As the Minister is to consider the matter, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 52 to 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56.
I move amendment No. 31:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where a harbour authority has under the enactments relating to it power at the date of the passing of this Act to charge tonnage dues in respect of vessels entering or making use of the harbour of such harbour authority, such harbour authority shall have power to make such charges to seaplanes or aircraft entering or making use of such harbour as the Minister may from time to time prescribe.
I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. I understand that at present there are no regulations governing this matter.
This would come under a Harbours Act. It is contemplated that a general Harbours Bill will be brought to the Dáil in due course. This matter would, I think, more properly come under that measure.
In the meantime, does the Minister think that there will be no need for some regulation?
The powers of the harbour authorities are laid down in these Harbour Acts, and this Bill does not confer any power on a harbour authority to establish or maintain an aerodrome except in so far as it enables a local authority to make a contribution in respect of an aerodrome. The power of the harbour authorities does depend upon particular statute applying to harbour authorities. I presume that should the harbour authorities set up aerodromes themselves they will be entitled to charge fees.
The Minister does not think they can do that at the present time?
That is the trouble. Assistance should be given if required. There is no power to charge any fees for the service——
I beg the Deputy's pardon. I thought what the Deputy asked was whether I saw any reason at present for this provision in the Bill. I do not see any reason why the harbour authorities, if they have general powers to charge dues, cannot avail themselves of these powers in this particular case. As we are not dealing with harbour authorities or their powers under this Bill, I do not think it quite consistent to drag them in on this issue when in fact a Harbour Bill is in preparation. That is a procedure that should not be followed. I suggest that this matter can be rectified when the Harbour Bill comes before the Dáil.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 56 stand part of the Bill."
There is a whole code of sections here relating to local authorities and so forth. Does the Minister want all Stages of this Bill before the Recess?
I suggest that this Bill ought to be put into cold-storage after the Committee Stage until the autumn session in order to give the local authorities an opportunity of considering it and consulting with the Minister on any point in connection with it where they think their interests are affected. This Bill has not been adequately considered. Nobody has had time to peruse it with sufficient care. The Bill affects a number of interests and none of the people concerned with these interests has had an opportunity of examining it. The members of the Dáil have not had an opportunity this session of examining it fully. Does the Minister want it this session?
The Bill was printed on the 1st July and a Second Reading of the Bill has been passed through the House. Deputy Mulcahy, when asking for further time for the Committee Stage, definitely promised me that we would get facilities in connection with the remaining Stages of the Bill provided that we did not take the Committee Stage until a fortnight after the Second Reading. Now Deputies have had more than a fortnight for the Committee Stage. It is necessary, in connection with the transatlantic air services, that we should have the Bill passed into law before the Dáil adjourns.
To tell the honest truth, I do not give a fiddle-de-dee whether you pass it or not. But the House is asked to deal with this Bill containing up to 100 sections and two long Schedules. It was introduced in July. It is being considered together with the Insurance Bill, the Land Bill and several other very large and complex measures and it is absurd to suggest, with an Insurance Bill and these other Bills before this House, that adequate consideration can be given to this Bill. Nobody is in a better position to know that than the Minister himself. The Insurance Bill has got some kind of consideration. But this Bill is going through the House without the House understanding what it means, or understanding the interests affected by it. I think that is bad for our Parliamentary institution and it is bad for the country. What used to happen in the past was that the Stages of the Bill appropriate to this House would be given to the Minister but these Bills were then amended in the Senate. The Senate is no longer there, so that if this Bill has to be further amended it must be amended by an amending Bill which is a very undesirable procedure. The Government have to make up their minds that if they want Bills properly considered, they will have to give more than three weeks to the Opposition to examine them. We know that this Bill was introduced on the 1st July. It is only right that the House should be fixed with notice that the Opposition disowns responsibility for legislation of this kind when we have not had the time nor the opportunity to examine it properly. The House has not properly considered this Bill at all. There are only two or three members of the Fianna Fáil Party in the House just now and not one of them has the faintest notion of what is happening except that they know we are talking about aeroplanes.
Yes, he has. None of these Bills has been adequately considered.
It may be generally relevant.
It is relevant on the particular application of this section.
Could the Deputy tell us if he knows anything about this section?
No; I do not, nor does the Minister either. The Minister does not know "b" from a bull's foot about this Bill. When questioned on it he reads from a note that has been prepared and put before him by a civil servant. Those are the facts; adequate time has not been given for its consideration. Does the Minister himself know anything about this measure?
I know more about it than Deputy Dillon.
Section 56 agreed to.
Sections 57, 58, 59 and 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61.
(1) Where under this Act an aircraft is to be or may be detained, any authorised person may detain such aircraft.
(2) If an aircraft, after detention or after service on the commander of any notice or order for detention, takes off or attempts to take off before it is released by competent authority, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the pilot and also the owner and any person who causes the aircraft to take off, or to attempt to take off, shall each severally be guilty of an offence under this section;
(b) if such aircraft when so taking off has on board in the execution of his duty an authorised officer, the owner and pilot of such aircraft shall each severally be guilty of an offence under this section, and shall, if guilty of such offence, also be liable to pay to the Minister all expenses of and incidental to such officer being so taken on such aircraft.
(3) Where a person charged with an offence under this section is not the commander of the aircraft in respect of which such offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall be a good defence for such person to prove that on the occasion on which such offence is alleged to have been committed he was not a party nor privy to the taking off or attempted taking off of such aircraft.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In sub-section (2), page 28, lines 49 and 50, and in sub-section (3), page 29, line 8, to delete the word "commander" and substitute the word "pilot".
This amendment is to substitute the word "pilot" for the word "commander". It is considered a more appropriate word in the case of an aeroplane.
This is a section that was transferred from the Shipping Act.
We were all so much in a hurry that we had not time to see that the word "commander" was not the right word to use.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 62 and 63 agreed to.
SECTION 64.
Question proposed: "That Section 64 stand part of the Bill."
Can the Minister tell us what Section 2 of the Conveyance of Mails Act, 1893, provides? The section says that that Act shall apply to every service by air for the public carriage of passengers. Perhaps the Minister would explain this section?
The Conveyance of Mails Act, 1893, enables the General Post Office or the Postmaster-General to see that any tramway company carries on a reasonable service in regard to the conveyance of mails such as may be required from time to time. Then there are certain sections laying down, for example, the weight of mails which are to be carried, the conveyance of passengers and the remuneration for services to be fixed from time to time between the Postmaster-General and the tramway company, and so on. It is considered that all these should apply equally to services by air. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has, I think, certain definite powers to secure the proper utilisation of any transport undertaking for the carriage of mails, should he require it. This is simply applying these provisions under the present Bill to air transport.
Under the existing law the transport of mails from this country to another country is the subject of individual contracts with separate carrying companies into which the Post Office enters as a contracting party. Is it proposed under this section to give the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the right to make regulations compelling air transport companies to carry mails on terms which he stipulates for, or is the contracting capacity of the air transport companies preserved?
It is preserved. The remuneration is to be fixed by agreement. "Every tramway company shall, if required by the Postmaster-General, perform with respect to any tramway under or worked by the company all such reasonable services in regard to the conveyance of mails as the Postmaster-General from time to time requires." I understand that he can compel them to give facilities, but the remuneration may be fixed by agreement or failing agreement by the Railway Tribunal.
Commercial air services have been operating in Great Britain for some time, and the Post Office practice in Great Britain is very closely analogous to the Post Office practice here. Has the Post Office any such powers over independent air companies in Great Britain?
Has the Post Office power to fine an air transport company for late deliveries?
I imagine that would be part of the agreement between the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the carrying company. Surely there would be provision for penalties. We are only putting the air transport companies in the same position, and giving the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the same facilities in regard to them as he has already in connection with railway and tramway transport.
He has no such power in regard to shipping lines.
That is what I am trying to find out. I am prepared to be informed by anybody in a position to tell me.
Deputy Davin says the Minister has the same authority over shipping companies as he has over tramway and railway companies.
I did not say all shipping companies.
What shipping companies has the Deputy in mind?
It is between the Minister and Deputy Davin.
The Deputy is only wasting time.
I want to find out what the Minister apparently does not know. Deputy Davin says he has power.
If this is constructive criticism from the Deputy at this late day in July, I think the Deputy should go on holidays.
Let us not proceed on these lines. I want to know from the Minister if the powers he proposes to confer on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs under Section 64 are enjoyed by the Postmaster-General in Great Britain and, if so, have they worked satisfactorily?
It is not my duty to answer for how things may be done in Great Britain. I am surprised that the Deputy cannot devise some other means of obstruction than asking a silly question about what happened in Great Britain.
We will divide on the section.
I ask you, Sir, to find out how many Opposition Deputies are demanding a division.
That practice is only observed in certain cases.
Question put: "That Section 64 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and T. Crowley; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Nally.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 65.
Question proposed: "That Section 65 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister give an outline as to what sort of capital this company will have.
I explained the financial provisions of the Bill on the Second Reading. The present intention is that the capital of the Irish Free State company will be at least £1,000,000.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 66 and 67 agreed to.
SECTION 68.
Question proposed: "That Section 68 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section which gives the Minister power to invest the sum of £1,000,000 in this enterprise. Does the Minister intend to act under this section before the next session of the Dáil?
It is thought that all the formalities may not be completed before the re-assembly of the Dáil, but it is also possible that the company may be set up. The anxiety is to go ahead as speedily as possible. The section empowers the Minister for Finance to take up shares by subscription to a maximum of £1,000,000. That is the total nominal capital of the company. I have explained that the share capital will be called up only as and when required.
But would it not be necessary for the Minister to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose if he wishes to make a subscription before the Dáil reassembles?
The Central Fund is the method adopted here.
If the Minister desires to invest the sum of £1,000,000, or a lesser sum, in the shares of this company, what is the exact procedure that will be pursued? Will the Minister come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate, or has he some general power to issue, by fiat, money out of the Central Fund for this purpose?
Under Section 73 money will be advanced from the Central Fund. The debt will in that way be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and repayments by the company will be brought to credit as they are made. As regards the guarantee in respect of debentures, there will be no final charge on the Central Fund unless some portion of the money advanced is not repaid by the company, in which case such sums as are outstanding shall be paid to the Central Fund out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas. The intention is that the invested capital should be advanced from the Central Fund. It will come up in that way in the Dáil, but there will be no estimate. As regards the debentures, if it should happen that there is a deficiency which has to be made up by the Dáil, as provided in Section 73, then the matter of making up that deficiency will come automatically before the House.
Then it is the Minister's intention to borrow the money under sub-section (2)?
Under Section 73 the Minister may borrow if he wishes. On the other hand, he may advance the money out of the cash balance in the Exchequer.
What is the Minister's intention with regard to the terms on which he will authorise an issue of shares if the Government have to borrow? The Government are at present borrowing on a 4 per cent. basis. Unless the Government are going to give a subsidy to this company, they would have to get 5½ per cent. debentures or something of that kind from the air company. The air company might raise the money on more advantageous terms. Has the Minister considered that aspect?
If the cash balance in the Exchequer is sufficient, it is most likely the Minister will invest capital direct from the Exchequer balance. On the other hand, if it is not sufficient, he will have to borrow, and it is a matter for the Minister for Finance to borrow on the best terms he can secure. I can assure the Deputy that the intention is to go ahead as soon as possible, and I think the Opposition should grant us the facilities we are now looking for in connection with the passage of the Bill into law.
Does not the Minister think, when asking for authority to raise a sum of £1,000,000 either by way of borrowing or by issue from the Exchequer surplus, that he ought to tell us, when we are within two or three months of the transaction being actually completed, what the intentions of the Minister for Finance are? The Minister for Finance must foresee what the position of the Central Fund will be between now and 1st October, and he ought to be able to tell us whether he proposes to borrow money or avail of funds he has at his disposal. If he intends to borrow, does he intend to borrow to Treasury bills or to raise a State loan for the purpose? If he intends to raise the money by Treasury bills, at what rate of interest can he get money in that way? If he raises it on short-term credits of that character, has he any scheme in mind for the funding of the loan hereafter? It is pretty clear that if the Minister takes a substantial share of the capital, the money will be tied up for quite a considerable time, and it would not suit the Government to depend on short-term money to finance a transaction of this type. We ought to know the plans the Minister has in mind to meet that situation.
The intention at present is that the money should be advanced out of the Exchequer cash balance.
That would appear to be a most businesslike proceeding, but if it be advanced out of the Exchequer cash balance it may create a situation in which the Exchequer may require to be supplemented from some other source. The question arises whether it is to be by way of Treasury bills or if there is to be a loan. The Minister and the Minister for Finance last year asked for co-operation in making a success of the Conversion Loan. They are in this happy position that, having criticised the action of their predecessors in office when they were in office with regard to all finance matters, they put it almost as a matter of honour on the Opposition to support them in connection with making the Conversion Loan a success last December. Scarcely anybody who has experience of the opportunities for borrowing money in the public market now would have been agreeable to give 4 per cent. when a country like Great Britain can borrow money at 2½ per cent.
The position we are being placed in now is that we are asked to co-operate. We are not told what are the terms upon which the Minister's proposals are likely to emerge and if we refuse to co-operate we are told we are sabotaging the State. If we are to have co-operation we must understand the lines of the Minister's proposals, what the sum is that the State will ultimately have to meet and what rate of interest it will have to pay for the borrowed money. This Bill is not a Bill on which the Minister is entitled to ask for co-operation. It is an enabling Bill in connection with which the plans are not completed. We will be presented in the autumn with the whole matter completed so far as the Minister is concerned and we must be committed to supporting it or we will otherwise be charged with sabotaging the policy adopted by Parliament, in this case, although I think the actual instrument is the Government. It is not a businesslike proceeding. In recent years there has been a very remarkable drop in the interest most countries have to pay for the use of money. In this country, where the credit was high—and the credit of the country is not rendered any higher, any stronger or more stable by reason of the speeches made by those who happen to be in the Ministry——
The credit of the country is not rendered any higher by reason of the policy adopted. If the Minister has any point of order to raise, let him raise it.
I say that the Deputy is quite irrelevant.
This is a proposal to take £1,000,000 out of the Exchequer or to borrow it, and I am now told that my remarks are irregular and that is put as a point of order.
What is irrelevant is the allusion to what some Minister said at some time about some financial transaction. That has nothing to do with the section we are now discussing.
It has quite a very great deal to do with it, unfortunately.
This money is the people's money; it is not the Minister's; it is not the property of the Minister or the property of the Party that happen at the moment to have a majority here. Their successors will be called upon to pay the interest on this money. The success of this undertaking depends on the bargain that will be made in respect of the borrowing. The Minister has no information and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, has no information. The financial basis of this company, which is a very important consideration, must be bound up with the interest to be paid on the money. The House is not told the plan; it is not told the interest, the actual sum to be borrowed or the actual stage that the negotiations have entered.
Did anybody ever hear such a preposterous statement? I have read this evening a detailed statement of the commitments in which we are involved by reason of our agreement with other Governments in regard to the transatlantic air service. I told the Deputy on the Second Reading that the share capital would be £1,000,000 and, in addition, the Minister for Finance, provided he came to the House, would have power to arrange for subsidies. I have stated to-day what the nature of these subsidies may be. He has also power in regard to debentures. The total amount of the capital involved is £1,000,000. In spite of the desire of the Deputy to attain a position for himself in this House as an exponent of correct financial procedure, I would like to ask him since when has it become the custom for the Minister for Finance to enter into negotiations with the Opposition or to tell them how exactly he proposes to raise the money? Since when has the Deputy taken up that point of view? I always understood that that was a matter entirely for the Minister for Finance.
We are giving him powers under this measure to raise certain sums of money. I have explained to the Deputy that the intention at present is to advance the money out of the cash balance in the Exchequer. Should it be necessary to borrow, I think the Deputy should have sufficient confidence if not in the Minister, at least in the Department of Finance, and should have sufficient experience of them to realise that the country is going to get the best value it can, and that this money will be raised on the cheapest terms possible. I suggest, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that the Deputy is quite out of order in going into this question as to how exactly the Minister for Finance is going to raise this money.
The Minister probably reads the stock exchange returns now and then. He will find that the 4 per cent. loan is standing at a premium of over 8 or 9 per cent., and that in itself is a sufficient commentary on floating a conversion loan at 4 per cent. There is a certain level in respect of the value of money, and there was a certain extravagance in connection with the Conversion Loan at 4 per cent. Here is a proposition in regard to £1,000,000; it is going to be raised in some way or other. It may be taken out of the cash balance. It may be borrowed, and it is going to be borrowed in respect of proceedings or negotiations which we were told here on the Second Reading of this Bill were not yet complete. It is not good business.
It is not easy to get information, and I think the Minister gives us less than we are entitled to when he cannot see his way to inform us as to the terms upon which the Minister for Finance proposes to deal with this situation. He asks indignantly since when has it become the practice of this House to call on the Minister for Finance to render an account of his stewardship in advance. To that the answer might be made: "It has become the custom since the Minister for Finance has found himself called upon to appeal to the Opposition to co-operate with him in raising loans, and to say it is their patriotic duty to stand over everything and anything that he puts forward in the form of requests for loans of money to this State." For various reasons we deemed it to be in the public interest to accede to that request when it was made. We did give the Minister support which the Minister was good enough handsomely to acknowledge thereafter. But the Minister ought to understand that co-operation of that character makes him liable to give this House information in order that they may feel that such co-operation as they are in a position to offer is honestly given when they are in possession of all the facts; that any recommendation they may offer in regard to any issue which the Government proposes to make on the money market is made with a full knowledge of the facts, and that they are not recommending to anybody the purchase of a pig in a poke.
To depart from that aspect of this particular section, I want to direct the attention of the House to the fact that Section 68 is the section which authorises the Minister to invest in the shares of this company. I want to ask the Acting-Minister for Industry and Commerce whether this investment is to be made by way of State socialism or State capitalism. We are now becoming accustomed to State socialism or State capitalism characterising almost every activity of this Government. Does the Government propose to run this enterprise for profit, with a view to contributing that profit to the relief of the Exchequer? If it does, it is running it on State capitalist lines, and it is surprising to observe that not a single member of the Labour Party is here to make any inquiry in regard to this matter. Or do they propose to run it on State socialist lines? Do they intend to run it as a public service, setting up ideal conditions of employment, regarding solvency as a matter of minor importance, giving extravagant services for the minimum rates, and calling on the Exchequer to make up any deficiency in operating costs? The Minister must have one or other intention in his mind. If he proposes to run it on State capitalist lines, can he give us any estimate of the profit that he expects the Exchequer to derive from this enterprise? If he proposes to run it on State socialist lines, can he give us any estimate of the deficit which the Exchequer will be called upon to make up? One thing is perfectly certain— he is either going to have a surplus for the benefit of the Exchequer or a deficit that the Exchequer will have to make up. Can the Minister give us an estimate of either of those figures?
I suggest that in discussing the question of a Dáil loan, if that is the matter which Deputies were discussing, they are not quite in order, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle. It does not come up on this section. I have explained to them that the present intention is to advance this money from the cash balance in the Exchequer. The cash balance at present stands at £2,250,000. Even if the full £1,000,000 were required at present, I think I would be safe in saying that the necessary total advance of that sum could be made from the cash balance, but I have explained that the whole of the amount of £1,000,000 may not be necessary at the present time. To that extent, then, I think it is quite clear that we shall have sufficient money in the cash balance in the Exchequer to enable us to proceed. The Deputy wants to know whether this is State socialism.
This is a project—the Deputy apparently is not familiar with it—of an experimental character, no doubt very novel in its features. But does the Deputy seriously suggest that in connection with a project for the establishment of a transatlantic air service, when we are only entering on the experimental stage, we can tell what the losses or profits are likely to be? It is estimated that for some years to come there may be a deficit of thousands of pounds every year, and that this will have to be made up by subsidies contributed by the contracting Governments. It is anticipated that eventually there will be a return upon the capital invested, but I would not say that the chances are very great that within the next few years there is going to be any return, on account of the entirely experimental character of the service. I think that it should not be approached from the narrow financial point of view which Deputies opposite envisage. The setting up of a transatlantic air service is not in the same category as the setting up of a new industry; the beet industry——
The beet industry entails £1,500,000 a year.
It is a novel service, and our attitude in regard to it is that if it is a question whether we should come in now, as I said on the Second Reading, take advantage of whatever opportunities present themselves, and utilise those opportunities of putting our country on the map, we should do so, although it may be a costly operation. If the alternative is that we are going to be excluded from participation in the transatlantic services, I think any Deputy in this House and our people in general would not be pleased with that prospect. We are coming in on this aviation development, and we realise that it is going to be costly, but as an independent State we are seeing to it that we are going to have our proper share in the direction and control of this project. We have safeguarded the position as far as we can, and I think our point of view that it is a good and wise policy in the national interest to take those steps and invest those moneys, even though there may not be, in the narrow financial sense, an early return, is the sound and proper way of looking at the business. After all, in connection with the beet sugar or the electricity supply it might be argued that, from the narrow financial point of view, and a case might be made to show that the State has lost something, but as against that loss the State confers benefits on the citizens. We hope to confer benefits on our citizens through our participation in the transatlantic air services project. We hope to put our country on the map; we hope that this airport which we intend to establish will be utilised, not only by the companies over which the contracting Governments have control, but by other foreign companies, and that it will be a great centre of international air traffic.
I am very glad to hear what the Minister has had to say. Let me assure him that the transatlantic air scheme will never cost the citizens of this country a tithe of what the beet scheme cost. The beet scheme costs £250,000 per annum, whereas the transatlantic air scheme, even if we had to find the whole subsidy, could never cost that amount of money. As a matter of fact, however, the memorandum which the Minister read for us provided that our maximum contribution to the deficit will be £12,000 per annum.
Yes—and Great Britain is carrying the baby. It is interesting to see that this air line we are setting up is, very properly, a British Commonwealth air line connecting the Saorstát with England, Newfoundland, and the Dominion of Canada. I am sure that the patriotic soul of Deputy Tom Kelly is bubbling over with wrath at that.
And the United States of America.
It will be financed by the Government of the United Kingdom— the base, bloody and brutal Saxon. In the course of that memorandum the Minister also said:—
"I may add here that the Saorstát Government will also be entitled to participate in the British Commonwealth air mail scheme."
That, I think, is confined to the British Commonwealth of Nations. I am rather shocked at this. Am I to understand that President de Valera is responsible for co-operation in the British Commonwealth air mail scheme? What does Deputy Tom Kelly say to that?
Oh, no matter how base it was, we always took the Saxon money.
I suppose it will be on the basis of external association.
Perhaps the Deputy would come back to Section 68.
Yes, Sir. Section 68 provides for the subsidy we will have to pay in regard to this matter, and the Minister says that as an independent State we are co-operating in setting this route on foot. I cordially approve of that, and I want to make it clear that there is no criticism whatever from the Opposition of the Government in co-operating enthusiastically in this scheme that is devised for connecting up the State of Canada with the Saorstát and the State of Great Britain. We shall be very glad to do so, but I think that when the Minister congratulates himself that our contribution to the losses which are anticipated and which the Minister sets at hundreds of thousands of pounds for the first year—when we realise that our share of those hundreds of thousands of pounds is only going to be £12,000 per annum—we have got to realise that it is being reduced to that figure as a result of the fact that the British Government—with which, incidentally, we are at war—are prepared to find the balance, and that, but for the fact that we have this opportunity of co-operating with the other Commonwealth Governments in developing this transatlantic air line, the hundreds of thousands of pounds to which the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred would have to be found out of the Irish Exchequer. Owing to the advantageous position in which we find ourselves in the British Commonwealth of Nations, we are able to secure from our colleagues in that association assistance which, according to the Minister's estimate, will amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, and which enables us to secure for this State a last Atlantic terminus, east and west, of the transatlantic air service.
I think that is something that Deputy Tom Kelly, particularly, ought to turn over in his mind, brood upon, inwardly digest, and then discuss with his constituents in the City of Dublin. I would ask him, when he is considering it, to ask himself the additional question as to whether this co-operation between members of the British Commonwealth of Nations derogates in any way from the independence of this State to which the Minister for Industry and Commerce took such peculiar care to refer when he was dealing with this problem. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, I am glad to observe, does not seem to think that there is any inconsistency between the independence of this State and the Commonwealth co-operation in which he is at present engaged. That is a conversion which I welcome, and I trust it will extend to the more remote back benches of the Fianna Fáil Party, and I should be glad to think that it includes the giant intellect of Deputy Tom Kelly.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 69 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 73.
(1) All moneys from time to time required by the Minister for Finance—
(a) to meet payments required to be made by him to the company in respect of any shares subscribed for or taken up by him under this Act, or
(b) to meet sums which become payable under any guarantee given by him under this Act in respect of moneys secured by debentures issued by the company,
shall be charged on and paid out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.
(5) Any moneys paid out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section shall be repaid to the Central Fund (with interest thereon at such rates as the Minister for Finance shall appoint) by the company in such amounts and at such times as the said Minister shall appoint, and if and so far as any such moneys are not repaid by the company to the Central Fund, such sums shall be repaid to the Central Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In sub-section (1), page 31, line 54, to delete the words "charged on and paid" and substitute the word "advanced," and in sub-section (5), page 32, line 16, to delete the word "paid" and substitute the word "advanced".
The original phrasing of the section set out that the moneys from time to time required by the Minister for Finance for certain purposes shall be charged on and paid out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof. The object of the amendment, which, I understand, is to meet accountancy practice in connection with these matters, is to substitute the word "advanced" for the words "charged on" and "paid."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 73, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 74 and 75 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 76 stand part of the Bill."
We are to take it that Section 76 is governed by the statement contained in the Minister's memorandum to-day?
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 77 stand part of the Bill."
Is it proposed to lend Aer Lingus, Teoranta any money over and above the £1,000,000 which may be subscribed as capital?
I think I should explain that the intention is to set up a national company which shall invest in shares in the joint operating company responsible for the running of the transatlantic air service, but, in addition to representing us in the joint operating company, this national aviation company will have other functions. It will concern itself with aviation generally. It will control Aer Lingus and possibly other subsidiary companies running other services, and, finally, the national company will look after our interests generally so far as development of commercial aviation is concerned, so that the capital required, which will cover our needs with regard to the joint operating company, will also be utilised for developments in connection with subsidiary companies.
Is it now intended to make all internal aerial transport in this country a pseudo-Government service?
Yes, if I interpret the meaning of the expression "pseudo-Government" correctly.
In fact, it is going to become a monopoly controlled by a body which will be controlled by the Government. If that is so, has cognisance been taken of the rights of existing companies? I understand that there are companies operating at present between the City of Dublin and the City of Bristol in Great Britain. What will their position be vis-a-vis this new organisation?
The provision in Section 77 for a loan by the national company to Aer Lingus, Teoranta, is made to regularise the position brought about by the setting up of the Aer Lingus company prior to the setting up of the principal company, which is to provide its finances. The Government desired that the cross-Channel services should be put into operation as soon as possible and should not await the passage of this Bill. Aer Lingus, Teoranta, was, accordingly, set up with a nominal share capital of £100,000 to operate these services. The House is already familiar with the joint working arrangements come to between Aer Lingus, Teoranta, and Blackpool and West Coast Air Services, Ltd. Aer Lingus, Teoranta, is being financed at present by the issue of debentures, which have been taken up by the English company. When this Bill is enacted and the national company set up it will be necessary for it to discharge the liabilities which Aer Lingus, Teoranta, may have incurred and which are not satisfied. Provision has been included in the capital of the principal company for capitalising Aer Lingus, Teoranta, and the loan provided for in this section is complementary to that provision. The actual method by which the liability will be discharged will be settled later. There is a further provision in that section specifying the method in which the loan is to be repaid. With regard to the point about the monopoly, we are satisfied that there is room in present circumstances for only one company, so far as internal traffic is concerned.
Two points arise. One is that my recollection is that when this business of Aer Lingus was first mooted in this House, there was some kind of agreement with the Olley Company.
The Minister now refers to the Blackpool and West Coast Air Services, Ltd.
The other point that arises is that the Minister says quite casually that the Government is of the opinion that there is room for only one air service in this country. We have a monopoly in sugar, a monopoly in rubber, a monopoly in wheat, a monopoly in bacon, a monopoly in air services, a monopoly in electricity, and we are rapidly reaching a stage when every enterprise in this country is going to be governed by a monopoly which, at a stroke of the pen, can be made a branch of the Civil Service. This air service is going to be virtually a monopoly of the Civil Service. Electricity supply is already a branch of the Civil Service. The sugar business is virtually a monopoly of the Civil Service, and, except that the powers of regulation are so wide, the milling business is practically a branch of the Civil Service.
I do not think the Electricity Supply Board or the sugar company are branches of the Civil Service, either practically or otherwise. They are, in fact, not branches of the Civil Service.
I know we can argue finesse, but the Minister will agree with me that they are not the fruits of private enterprise. They are not independent companies. The Electricity Supply Board was the child of a mind closely approximating to genius and no one has yet managed to find into what category it falls. It is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring.
Does the Deputy apply that to all the products of the mind of his colleague?
It did emerge, as I say, from a mind which closely approximates to genius, but there it is. I direct the attention of the House to the fact that more and more of the activities of the people of this country are becoming directly or indirectly Government controlled. We have made national health insurance directly controlled by the Government. We are going to make industrial assurance directly controlled by the Government; we are going to make life insurance directly controlled by the Government; and I should not be at all surprised if we make fire and accident, and the entire insurance business directly controlled by the Government.
Are we on the Insurance Bill or on the Air Navigation Bill?
We are on the Air Navigation Bill and I am not going to be deflected from what I have to say in this connection. I ask the attention of the House to the fact that wherever the Minister for Industry and Commerce intervenes the influence of State socialism presents itself, and the Fianna Fáil Party are being dragged unwittingly into a full-dress campaign of State socialism, the logical conclusion of which is that every citizen of this State will become a wage-earning servant of the bureaucracy which occupies Government Buildings.
That is a tendency which I most strenuously object to and I know perfectly well that there never was a bureaucrat born who did not think he could run his own and his neighbour's business better than anybody else, but the unfortunate citizens of this State and every other State learned by painful experience that they make a howling mess of everything they put a finger into. Try to persuade a bureaucrat of that and you might as well be talking to an inmate of Grangegorman or to a gargoyle on St. Patrick's Cathedral. You make no impression on him at all. He is completely satisfied that he knows it all and so the best thing to do is to get control of whatever new departure is envisaged in the State. I admit that in the experimental stage in the development of such a thing as transatlantic air services it may be necessary for the State to put its resources into the scale. I see no reason whatever for making the internal air transport of this country a monopoly, and I think it is a highly-undesirable principle to introduce at this juncture, particularly when it is well known to the Minister that more than one suggestion has come forward from individuals who are prepared to undertake the operation of air services in this country, and between this country and Great Britain, without substantial State assistance of any kind. Is that not so?
And these offers by private enterprise have been turned down. Why? Because the bureaucracy of this country believe they can do it better and can do it the right way. I ask Deputies to make up their minds as to whether they want a bureaucracy to run everything, because if you want a bureaucracy to run all the shops in the country, they know how to do it.
This section has reference to the loan by the company to Aer Lingus, Teoranta.
Yes, and the Minister informs me that it is going to be a monopoly in this country and the loan is going to be for the purpose of facilitating Aer Lingus, Teoranta to carry on the entire internal aerial communications of this country.
That power is not given under Section 77.
No, but the money is loaned for that purpose under Section 77. They cannot do it for nothing and they must get the power under some section. I do not know what the proposal is whereby the Minister intends to confine internal air transport to Aer Lingus, Teoranta.
I have been trying to indicate to the Deputy that if that is to be discussed there must be some appropriate section for doing so.
I do not think there is any section to reveal that, except that skill in debate, which is evidenced by the Opposition, managed frequently to secure from the Minister admissions which he has been striving gallantly to conceal. The Minister admitted in an unguarded moment that he intends to give Aer Lingus, Teoranta a monopoly. He did not want to tell that until it had to be done, and then he explained——
I think the Minister cannot read into the section what is not in it.
No, but he can reveal to the House what he intends to do, and the only way that the House can stop that is by withholding the money. Would the Minister tell why he wants to borrow money under Section 77 or why he wants to raise a loan for Aer Lingus, Teoranta? Was it in order to reject proposals made to him by private individuals to undertake aerial transport in this country?
In reply to the point that Deputy Dillon has raised, I should say that there were a number of proposals before the Department for cross-Channel services. The English company which shares with Aer Lingus responsibility for the service at present is very satisfactory. It has a high reputation from the point of view of experience and capacity in this class of business, and also from the financial point of view. I am quite satisfied the proposals put up by that company were altogether superior to any other proposals which were made. As a matter of fact, I may say that no subsidy is required at present for the running of the cross-Channel services, whereas, in connection with other proposals put before the Department, the promoters demanded that a subsidy should be made available. That is one consideration. The service is being run efficiently and properly without any subsidy from the State. Another consideration is that we are quite satisfied that, of the applications made to us for permits the applications made by the companies at present responsible for the service were by far the most satisfactory from the point of view of dependability, prestige, and capacity to do the work. In connection with this cross-Channel service two companies are involved, an Irish company and a British company. There has to be recognition of the fact that you must have collaboration and co-operation between the English and the Irish companies in order to carry on the service satisfactorily. That is being done under the present arrangement. We are fully satisfied that of the proposals put up to us, the one which was accepted was by far the best. There is no use in the Deputy talking about bureaucracy unless he is able to show the Dáil the basis upon which it is suggested that one of the other proposals was superior to this proposal. From the financial point of view, they were inferior and, from the point of view of general suitability, they were inferior. We are satisfied with what has been done. If it could be shown that there should be need for other companies I have no doubt the Minister will be prepared to look into it. In connection with this service he is satisfied that at present there is no necessity for other companies. Talk of monopoly, having regard to the fact that these other companies or promoters were looking for a subsidy, is rather peculiar. The monopoly at present is perfectly efficient and satisfactory to the public and is not costing the State any money.
Are we to understand that the Minister now informs the House that at no time hereafter will a subsidy be given to any company.
There is no intention at present, but there may be other developments which may render it necessary.
It might transpire that the difference between the two proposals was that one body was honest enough to come forward with a view to starting a service if there was a subsidy, and that another body, if they were let run a service between Dublin and Bristol, would do it for nothing, but when established they would talk business and talk about a subsidy, too. That cuts no ice.
There is an Irish company.
More power to their elbow. I hope they will make plenty of money. Meantime this new company which is to be set up under this Bill is going to be allowed to advance money to Aer Lingus, Teoranta, to redeem debentures at present held by the British company. In respect to Aer Lingus, Teoranta, when these debentures are paid, will the British company have any further interest in it?
None? They will be out of the business altogether?
They will be out of this matter.
I remember the Minister for Industry and Commerce telling us that Aer Lingus, Teoranta, was going to consist of a company promoted by Olley Air Transport Company or the Blackpool and West Coast Air Transport Company, that it would have certain Irish shareholders in it, but that the bulk of the capital would be held by the Olley Air Transport Company. Is the Minister sure he is right when he says that when the debentures are paid off the Olley Air Transport Company will be out of Aer Lingus, Teoranta?
The position is that there is a working agreement between Aer Lingus, Teoranta, and the Olley company, and when the question of debentures is settled by the national company, which will discharge these liabilities, the national company will then finance Aer Lingus, Teoranta, which will be an Irish company responsible for the conduct of the service. There is no control by the Olley company of Aer Lingus, Teoranta, but there is a working agreement between the English and the Irish companies for the running of the service.
They will be two separate companies. Then the company which is to be set up under this Bill will pay off the money the Olley Air Services have lent, the debentures on Aer Lingus, Teoranta, and the company under this Bill will undertake that liability, whatever it may be, and will take from Aer Lingus, Teoranta, debentures or ordinary shares at a rate of interest to be fixed by the Minister. It is the intention of the Minister to fix a rate of interest on these shares which will yield a profit to the company set up under this Bill, or will it act merely as a conduit pipe to transfer money they have obtained from the Government—£1,000,000—to Aer Lingus, Teoranta, at the same rate of interest as they are being charged by the Government for it?
If shares are issued there is no question in regard to that. If debentures are issued, I presume the interest will be specified.
The intention is to invest share capital.
It is not the intention of the company to take debentures for the money they lend Aer Lingus, Teoranta, wherewith to buy out the Olley people?
There are certain debentures which have been taken up by the English company in Aer Lingus, Teoranta. It is understood the new company will take over this liability, so that Aer Lingus, Teoranta, will start off with a clean sheet, so to speak, and the capital invested in it will be invested by the national company. The intention is that it shall be by way of share capital.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 80.
Question proposed: "That Section 80 stand part of the Bill."
Why does not the Control of Manufactures Act apply to this company?
Because it is thought that the Minister for Finance, in his capacity as a corporation sole, is not a Saorstát national in the legal sense, and it might be necessary for the Department of Industry and Commerce to issue a licence to him under the Control of Manufactures Act. It is thought that this section will render that unnecessary.
There is no nigger in this wood pile?
Not as far as I know. The necessity for the issue of a licence is eliminated by the non-application of the Act as provided for in this section.
It seems to me a most astonishing theory that the Minister for Industry and Commerce for Saorstát Eireann viewed as a corporation sole, and therefore as a legal person, is not an Irish national.
It is the Minister for Finance.
Even the Minister for Finance. Can the Minister see any sense in such a contention?
That is the advice we have got. It is the Minister for Finance to whom it applies in this case but it applies probably to all Ministers acting in that capacity.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 81 to 92, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 93.
Question proposed: "That Section 93 stand part of the Bill."
Section 93 hangs together with Section 96, which is the section providing for the grant of a licence. Section 93 sub-section (1) provides for the renewal of the licence. I understood from the Minister that he demurred from the suggestion that it was the Minister's intention to create a monopoly in this business. I observe that in Section 86, paragraph (b), the Minister may in his absolute discretion either grant or refuse any such licence, while he is bound to grant a licence to a company which is operating at the present time. It does seem odd that the Minister binds himself to grant a licence to the existing company when, so far as I am aware, the Minister used his influence to the utmost of his capacity to discourage other persons starting prior to January 1st, 1936. Am I correct in that?
What section is the Deputy referring to?
Yes, the Minister has to be satisfied that the person who is carrying on the business was carrying on the business on the 1st January, 1936. In that case the Minister must grant him a licence.
And the Minister before that period used all his influence to prevent certain persons setting up in the business at all. If these persons had set up, under the terms of the Bill they would be entitled to demand, as of right, a licence. The Minister having dissuaded all but one from setting up, binds himself to give the existing company a licence, and he has absolute discretion to give or refuse a licence to anybody else.
Why should he not have that discretion?
Mussolini has asked the same question in Rome, Hitler has asked the same thing in Berlin, and General Mola will, no doubt, ask the same thing in Madrid.
I think the section prevents the Minister from refusing the grant of the renewal of a licence.
To complete the circle, Stalin asks the same question in Moscow, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce gets up now and crows on his dunghill.
The licensing provision does not apply to the regular services. It only applies to a private business. The licence is for the purpose of safeguarding the national company.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 94 to 96, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 97.
Question proposed: "That Section 97 stand part of the Bill."
Are these sections substantially the same as the sections relating to licences under other Acts?
Is Section 97 substantially the same as the analogous provision in the cereals legislation?
It is the same as the analogous section in the Road Transport Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 99.
Question proposed: "That Section 99 stand part of the Bill."
Has the Minister any information to give us as to what fee he expects will be charged in regard to this matter?
No. We must have regard to the general development of aviation. A decision has not been arrived at so far as to the amount of the fee.
Is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking in general terms, as he gave in the case of the Insurance Bill, that the fees will be not greater than the administration of the Bill will call for? The Minister gave an undertaking in the case of the Insurance Bill that these fees would not be used for the purpose of raising revenue or for any purpose other than to meet the expenses of the administration of the Bill. Does the same undertaking apply in this case?
I cannot give any such undertaking.
Does the Minister intend to use this as a revenue-raising device?
No. I cannot give the Deputy the undertaking he is looking for.
Can the Minister give us any limit beyond which the fee for an aviation licence will not go?
It is quite possible that a fee of £10,000 would be charged.
There is no intention of charging unreasonable fees.
There is no necessity for getting at loggerheads over this matter. What is the purpose of the fee?
Does not the Deputy see that the fee is to be fixed "with the consent of the Minister for Finance?" The Deputy will agree that we must at least have the opinion of the Minister for Finance before making any definite statement.
Certainly, and if the Minister goes to the Minister for Finance and suggests that the fee be £10,000, he will say "Make it £20,000." If he suggests a fee of £100,000, the Minister for Finance will suggest that it be made a quarter of a million.
We have provisions in connection with fees in a number of Acts.
And in the case of every other Act the Minister was willing and ready to give an undertaking that the fees would be no greater than would be reasonably required to defray the cost of administering the Act. In this case, he does not seem to be willing to give that undertaking. I do not want to press him to name the fee within a limit of £5 or £10. But he was prepared to tell us, in the case of the Insurance Bill, what the maximum fee would be.
I do not want to press the Minister unduly. Will he make a note of the matter and mention it on the next stage?
Sections 99 and 100 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
These are all international conventions?
Yes, in this Schedule.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
This Schedule sets out the conditions to which the company is to conform. The memorandum and articles of association of the company shall be subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance, after consultation by him with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Certain conditions must be observed in connection with the memorandum and articles of association of the company.
Second Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I presume that Deputy Dillon is not prepared to give me the Fourth Stage now?
I propose to take the Report Stage on Tuesday week. Am I to understand that we shall get facilities for the remaining stages of the Bill with as little delay as possible?
The Minister will receive from the Opposition the cordial co-operation which he always gets in any reasonable enterprise.
Before we pass from the Bill, I should like to state that the Phænix Park is definitely State land by virtue of Article 11 of the Constitution. It is subject to the State Lands Act, and any lease or licence by the Minister for Finance to, say, the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be laid before the Dáil and be subject to their decision, signified by either lapse of time or the passing of an annulling resolution.
Therefore, no part of the Phænix Park can be enclosed for the purpose of an aerodrome without the lease being presented to this House?
That is my information.
Fourth Stage fixed for Tuesday, 11th August.
Attention called that a quorum was not present. House counted and a quorum found present,
