On Section 5 I am anxious to get some information. State aircraft are exempt from certain provisions of earlier Acts, and the extension of the definition to include aircraft of any nationality used in military, customs and police services, I take it, carries with it the exemptions from these provisions of the earlier Acts. The Government can, of course, make an Order under the Act of 1936 bringing these State aircraft subject to some of the provisions of the Acts and presumably it will do so where public safety or other important consideration may arise.
Committee on Finance. - Air Navigation and Transport Bill—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
As the Deputy is aware, the definition of State aircraft was covered under the Paris Convention of 1919 and that was replaced at the Chicago Convention of 1944 and it is proposed to bring the definition of State aircraft into conformity with the definition of the Chicago Convention. The 1919 definition covered military aircraft and every aircraft used exclusively on State services including postal, customs and police service. The Chicago definition does not include postal services and, as it has not been ratified, it is thought that it is not necessary to bring it into line with that definition. As the Deputy mentioned, an Order can be made under the 1936 Act making it clear that the term "State aircraft" entitles aircraft on State work to privileges and also to the obligations to comply with whatever restrictions are contained in the Chicago Convention.
There is a point which I should like to make clear. The Act of 1936 is a Principal Act. State aircraft defined as aircraft engaged in services on behalf of the Irish State are exempt from provisions of that Act. The Government had power to bring them under some of the provisions where they thought that was necessary. We are now extending the definition of "State aircraft", and so I think it would be necessary to review the provisions of the 1936 Act which was framed when the definition of "State aircraft" was very much narrower and see whether it is necessary to apply some of the provisions of that Act to State aircraft of other nationalities.
The 1936 Act still stands and, under the orders carrying certain definitions, any amendments that are necessary can be made. As the Deputy has suggested, I think it is desirable that these orders should be examined to see if amendments are necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
The Act of 1936 gave power to acquire land compulsorily in order to ensure that it would not be used in a manner dangerous to aircraft and to permit of the demolition of buildings, trees and so forth which might constitute such a danger. That power of compulsory acquisition is now being extended to any purpose relating to the development of civil aviation. That, I take it, would cover the acquisition of premises in O'Connell Street for offices for Aer Lingus, or property which was not adjacent to aircraft, where no consideration of safety came into the decision to purchase at all. It seems to me that some limitation on the provision in Section 6 is necessary.
Section 36 of the Principal Act provides:—
"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...
(b) for the purpose of securing that trees and buildings on the land adjacent to an aerodrome..."
In view of that, I doubt if the danger which the Deputy mentions is likely to arise.
In addition to these provisions, you are now proposing to acquire land compulsorily for any purpose relating to the development of civil aviation. That appears to be such a wide definition of the purposes for which land can be acquired compulsorily that, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary should look into it again. This power of compulsory acquisition as I argued on the Transport Bill, should only be given in circumstances where the State has no alternative but to acquire a particular tract of land which, because of its location, is the only one suitable for the purpose which the State has in view. It seems to me that the power of extension here is very much wider than is necessary in order to meet any difficulty that has arisen out of the 1936 Act.
I will look into the section again. I think the Deputy will agree that the proposed amendment must be related to the two earlier paragraphs (a) and (b) in the 1936 Act. In so far as those paragraphs are concerned, this only applies to land adjacent to an aerodrome. Paragraph (c) may look a bit wide, taken by itself, but I think, if it is related to the section in the Principal Act, it is clear that it only applies to land or property adjacent to an aerodrome.
If that is so, I have no objection.
I can have the matter examined between now and the Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
The only point I want to raise on this section is, in a sense, a drafting one. Under Section 41 of the original Act, the Minister was given power to acquire property, including water rights, compulsorily with the consent of the Minister for Finance, but he could not acquire a water right without consultation with the Minister for Agriculture. It seems to me that you have eliminated the Minister for Agriculture. That may have been a good thing, though I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary intended to do that. Does the Minister for Agriculture know that he is being eliminated?
I do not think that we meant to eliminate him.
I think you have done it.
I will look into it. I cannot imagine him being eliminated in such an arbitrary fashion.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
As a matter of information, I should like to know whether there have been any annexes to the Chicago Convention since the convention was ratified by the Dáil. The original convention was submitted to the Dáil for ratification.
There was one.
Was that brought to the Dáil for ratification?
It was embodied in a Statutory Rule and Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10, 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), line 39, before "and" to insert "and/or licensed airfield."
The purpose of the amendment is to include a certain licensed airfield that is near Cork. At the moment, there are certain aircraft landing on that airfield. There are certain chartered services there which, I understand, would be scheduled services if the Minister for Industry and Commerce would give his sanction. This airfield was constructed by private enterprise. It is fulfilling a long-felt want in Cork. This Bill, like a number of other Bills that come before this House, seems to be devised for the purpose of concentrating things at the Dublin airport, even though we have been told that at the moment that airport is overladen with traffic and is extremely congested. We have, as I have said, this airfield at Cork which was established by private enterprise. Its location is considered to be one of the best in the country. The purpose of putting down the amendment is to have it covered under Section 13 so that the necessary provision could be made to have it sanctioned by the Minister. The idea is that at a later stage, when it is sanctioned by the Minister, scheduled flights will be put into operation there with the same facilities and requirements as are prescribed for Collinstown, and so that these facilities will be available in Cork.
I should like to support the amendment. This airfield has served 150 planes since it was opened. As the Parliamentary Secretary was present at the opening of the airfield, it is not necessary to tell him what it would mean to the South if that airfield got a chance. The strange thing about it is that the airfield people are not asking for money. All they want is that you should give them a scheduled service. There is a meteorological station at Midleton and it would be a great acquisition to the airfield at Farmer's Cross if it were transferred there as it is 572 feet higher than the one in Midleton. It is rather strange that that should be down there where there is nothing at all at the moment rather than in the Cork Airways Company's airfield where it is 572 feet higher. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Cork airfield deserves more consideration than it has got from the Government.
I do not think this amendment is necessary, because Section 13 deals with the Minister's right to erect and maintain certain apparatus on land in the vicinity of aerodromes and in Section 2 of the Principal Act an aerodrome is defined as "any definite and limited area, including water, intended to be used either wholly or in part for use in connection with the landing or departing of aircraft." In the Air Navigational General Regulations, 1930, there is the same definition and Regulation 64 (1) also reads as follows:—
"The Minister may issue in respect of any aerodrome situated in Ireland a licence authorising the use of such aerodrome in these regulations referred to as a licensed aerodrome as a regular place of departure and landing of aircraft carrying passengers or goods for hire or reward."
There is no legal definition of the expression "licensed airfield" and there does not appear to be any need for it, because of the definition of the word "aerodrome" in the Principal Act, and the Air Navigation Regulations, 1930, cover all types of airfield, while an aerodrome does not require to be licensed unless it is used as a regular place of departure for planes carrying either passengers or goods. Section 13 of this Bill empowers the Minister to exercise the powers proposed in respect of any type of aerodrome, including the airfield which the Deputies have referred to. Consequently, I do not think there is any necessity for the amendment.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary inclined to do something for the Cork airfield in view of the fact that there are five liners per week arriving at Cobh and there are people travelling to London and Cardiff who could go across in two hours from this airfield while it would take them ten hours to go via Dublin?
That is a separate matter.
Is it not a fact that the Department refused permission for a scheduled air service in Cork because they had not certain facilities?
That arises under a later section dealing with the question of meteorological services and I can deal with it later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To insert in sub-section (2) the following new paragraph:—
(e) the map attached to the Order may be omitted from the Order in any publication thereof in pursuance of paragraph (a) of this sub-section, but copies of the Order with the map attached thereto shall be deposited in the offices of the Department of Industry and Commerce at Kildare Street, Dublin, and shall be there kept open for public inspection at all reasonable times.
The purpose of the amendment is to add an additional sub-paragraph to sub-section (2). Under paragraph (a) of this sub-section a Protected Area Order must be published and a map attached to the Order must also be reproduced and published. It is sometimes difficult to reproduce a map in a publication like Iris Oifigiúil and for that reason this amendment provides that a map need not be published, but that it should be made available at all reasonable times for inspection at the Department of Industry and Commerce, Kildare Street.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 15 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
There are two amendments, Nos. 3 and 4, to this section which are out of order and may not be moved. The purpose of them is to empower the Minister to pay subsidies. Obviously, the exercise of that power would entail a liability on State funds, and I suppose it would be safe to assume that he would be asked so to exercise the powers. Consequently, the amendment may not be moved.
I submit, Sir, that your ruling is open to question inasmuch as the Bill itself proposes to authorise the Minister for Finance to pay subsidies and fixes a limit to the amount he may so pay, and that the only purpose of the amendments is to alter the definition of the purpose for which the subsidies may be paid within the limit prescribed.
Where does the section fix a limited amount? This section does not fix the amount.
That is the main provision. The main purpose of the section is to increase the subsidy. I am not, of course, in favour of paying subsidies to Cork.
I will have to stand over my ruling.
May I say that the section proposes to give subsidies to Aer Rianta, and the idea of the amendments is to add another body or other bodies to that company?
Of course, the Minister may do it, but the Deputy may not. If he can persuade the Minister, well and good, but he may not move it.
Section 25 put and agreed to.
Section 26 and Schedules agreed to.
A while ago the Parliamentary Secretary said he would deal with the section relating to meteorological services. Can he tell us when it is his intention to do so?
I will deal with it now if the House agrees, or, alternatively, to-morrow.
What is before the House?
Meteorological services, under Section 25.
I do not know if it is relevant to Section 25. At the time I was under the impression that the proposed amendments would be discussed. I think it is better to leave this matter over and the Deputy could raise it on the Report Stage.
It would be better to raise it on the Fifth Stage.
Bill reported with amendments.
Ordered: That the Report Stage be taken to-morrow.