Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1965

Vol. 214 No. 7

Supplementary Estimate, 1964-65. - Air Navigation and Transport Bill, 1964: Second Stage.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The objects of the Bill are stated briefly in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the text. Under the provisions of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, the Warsaw Convention has the force of law in this country in relation to carriage by air between Ireland and other countries to which the Convention applies. In general terms, the Convention provides that when an accident occurring during international carriage by air causes death or injury to a passenger or damage to cargo, there is a presumption of liability on the carrier. The Convention enables some compensation for death or loss to be obtained without litigation. The contracting carrier's liability for each passenger under the Warsaw Convention was limited to 125,000 gold francs (approx. £3,000). Under the Hague Protocol to the Convention, which was given effect here by the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1959, the limit was doubled to about £6,000. In any case, however, where wilful neglect or misconduct can be established against the carrier there is no limit to his liability.

The Warsaw Convention governs only cases where the contracting carrier performs the carriage and does not contain particular rules relating to international carriage by a person who is not a party to the agreement for carriage such as, for example, the case where a passenger has made an agreement for carriage by one airline and that airline arranges for the passenger to be carried by another airline.

In order to cover cases of this kind, the Convention, supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Performed by a Person other than the Contracting Carrier was concluded at Guadalajara, Mexico, on 18th September, 1961. Under this Convention, if an actual carrier performs the whole or part of carriage which, according to the Agreement of the contracting carrier with the passenger or consignor, is carriage subject to the rules of the Warsaw Convention, then he, as well as the contracting carrier, shall be subject to those rules. The contracting carrier is subject for the whole of the carriage contemplated in the Agreement, the actual carrier solely for the carriage which he performs. Section 2 of the Bill will apply the Guadalajara Convention to carriage between this country and other contracting States.

Section 4 of the Bill re-enacts with amendments section 18 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, which concerns the manner in which the liability imposed on the carrier by the Warsaw Convention in respect of the death of a passenger shall be enforceable and contains for the purpose of enforcement a definition of the expression "member of a family".

Section 18 of the 1936 Act was first amended by section 4 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1959, to provide that, in deducing any relationship, a person adopted under the Adoption Act, 1952, shall be considered a lawful child of the adopters and a person in loco parentis to another shall be considered the parent of that other. The Civil Liability Act, 1961, further amended and replaced section 18. This amendment was designed to bring the law in regard to fatal air accidents, as far as possible, in line with the general law governing fatal injuries. The Civil Liability Act, 1964, amended the general law for fatal injuries by repealing the provision in earlier Acts limiting claims for mental distress to three years. It is desirable to make the same provision in respect of air accidents. It is also necessary to take account of the Guadalajara Convention in the application of the section. Rather than introduce a series of amendments in the present Bill, it is proposed to reenact the entire section as amended.

The Warsaw Convention, as amended by the Hague Protocol, can by section 20 of the 1936 Act and section 8 of the 1959 Act be applied to internal carriage as well as international carriage by air. It is desirable that internal carriage should also have the benefits of the Guadalajara Convention and section 5 of the present Bill so provides.

The control of air services is one of the main purposes of the Bill. At present the Minister's powers in this matter derive from two measures. The first is the Air Navigation (International Lines) Order, 1935.

This Order, which was made under the Air Navigation Act, 1920, was expressed to give effect to certain provisions of the 1919 Paris Convention on Aerial Navigation. Under the Convention, each contracting State was to make prior authorisation a condition of the establishment of international airways on its territory. The Paris Convention has been superseded by the Chicago Convention of 1944 but the International Lines Order was continued in force under section 15 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936. There are, however, certain doubts as to the validity and efficiency of the Order in present day conditions and its replacement is desirable.

The Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1946, provided for the bringing into operation of and giving effect to the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed at Chicago in 1944. The Chicago Convention recognises that each contracting State has control of the air space over its territory and consequently proceeds to lay down that no scheduled international air services may be operated over or into the territory of a contracting State except with the special permission or authorisation of the State concerned and then only in accordance with the terms of such permission or authorisation.

Contracting States, including Ireland, normally accord this permission or authorisation by way of bilateral air agreement with the State of Registry of the airline concerned. Such agreements are based on the premise that the State has control and that the Minister for Transport and Power, acting for the State, may attach any conditions he thinks fit to permissions or authorisations for air services issued by him. It is thought desirable, therefore, at this stage, by enactment of the present measure, to put beyond doubt the State's control over air services to, from, within or over its territory.

It should perhaps be made clear that the intention is not to introduce any new or onerous restrictions on international aviation operations but to ensure that the State's powers are clearcut and unequivocal. It is proposed that this control will be exercised through the provisions of section 6 of the Bill in conjunction with sections 7 and 8. The main control authorised by section 6 will be brought into operation on such day as the Minister may appoint by Order. This will afford sufficient time for the preparation and publication of the necessary Orders under section 7 and authorisations under section 8.

Section 6 of the Bill restricts the operation of air services to, from within or over the territory of the State unless the service is either covered by by order under section 7 of the Bill or by an authorisation under section 8. The services to be permitted by order under section 7 will include:

(a) the type of services covered by our bilateral air agreements;

(b) flights for non-traffic purposes and overflights which may be operated by countries which, like Ireland, are parties to the International Air Services Transit Agreement which ensures between signatories automatic rights to overfly and make stops for non-traffic purposes; and

(c) the individual flights or short series of non-scheduled flights permitted by the Multilateral Agreement on Commercial Rights of Non-scheduled Air Services in Europe.

These flights are all of a type covered by international agreements, either bilateral or multilateral. The list is not exhaustive; other categories of flights and extension of the present categories may arise in future. It would be difficult to delineate and keep up to date all categories of flights in the present Bill; authorisation by Order seems therefore a more appropriate method of dealing with the matter.

In addition to the types of services to be covered by Order, a number of air services of various kinds are operated, such as charters, inclusive tours, casual non-scheduled flights etc. Control over such services is intended to be operated under section 8 of the Bill. Under this section the Minister may issue authorisations to operate one or more flights under such provisions and conditions as he thinks appropriate.

It is intended that the sections of the Bill which authorise control of international services will be used also for control over internal air services and over Irish aviation businesses. At present under section 84 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, the Minister for Transport and Power may authorise the operation of internal air services only if they are carried on by one of the statutory companies —Aer Rianta or Aer Lingus or a subsidiary company — or by a person who is already authorised to establish an international air service, provided such international air service and the internal service are carried on with the same aircraft.

Conditions have changed to such an extent since 1936 as to justify repeal of section 84 and the introduction of the measure proposed in sections 6 and 8 of the present Bill. This enables the Minister for Transport and Power in his discretion to grant an authorisation to any person to operate an air service within the State.

Apart from the categories of flights which I have already mentioned there is in Ireland a certain amount of small aviation business which at present is carried on by virtue of licences granted under Part X of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936. The work authorised under these licences falls into three categories (i) aviation private hire business (ii) pleasure flights; (iii) instruction flights. Private flying as such is not subject to control under this part of the Act, neither is aerial photography or other such aerial work. It is most desirable that our legislation regarding the control of air space should be as compact and consolidated as possible and in view of the generality of sections 6 and 8 of the present Bill it is no longer necessary to retain Parts IX and X of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936.

It is proposed therefore to repeal these Parts and to cancel licences issued under Part X. Fresh authorisations under section 8 of the present Bill will be issued to the holders of existing licences and the conditions and provisions attaching to the new authorisations will as far as practicable be in line with those attaching to the existing licences. The definition of an air service in this Bill will exclude from the proposed controls private flying, executive type flying and aerial work generally as well as instruction flights. These excluded categories will therefore in future be subject only to the operational control exercised from a technical and safety aspect and will not require a special licence or authorisation under this Part of this Bill.

Part X of the 1936 Act contains provisions relating to applications for the grant and renewal of licences, attachment and amendment of conditions, commencement and duration of licences and other similar matters of detail. It seems more appropriate to deal with these matters of detail by means of regulations rather than by an Act of the Oireachtas and it is so proposed in the present Bill. The fees to be charged for authorisations will be fixed in consultation with the Minister for Finance.

It has already been mentioned that under the Chicago Convention scheduled international air services may be operated over or into the territory of a contracting State only in accordance with the terms of the permission or authorisation given by the State concerned. Here also it is felt desirable, at this stage, to put the position beyond doubt by enacting sections 9 and 10 of the present Bill. Section 9 gives the Minister power to fix by Order rates and fares charged on air services, while section 10 gives him the right to approve or refuse to approve of the fares or rates proposed to be charged on such services.

I do not anticipate that the necessity for fixing rates for carriage of passengers, cargo or mail by Order will arise very frequently because the present method of fixing international rates is on the whole working satisfactorily. This method, which is set out in most of our bilateral air agreements, provides that the rates to be charged on the air routes governed by the bilaterals shall be agreed by the designated airlines of the countries concerned. Agreement shall where possible be reached through the rate-fixing machinery of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The rates so agreed must then be submitted for approval to the Aeronautical Authorities of the countries concerned. If agreement is not reached, the Aeronautical Authorities themselves shall try to determine the tariffs. If the Aeronautical Authorities fail, the matter can be referred to arbitration appointed by the parties themselves or, in the final analysis, by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

As I have already stated, the IATA arrangements insofar as they affect transport to or from Ireland are subject to my approval. In these circumstances, it is not likely that use will often be made of the rate fixing powers in the present Bill to control scheduled airline operations unless IATA fails to agree on rates. The fixing powers will, of course, also be applicable to non-scheduled operations and to non-IATA airlines, so that if necessary, control of these rates, which are not at present subject to any special control, can be effected.

Sections 11, 15 and 16 of the Bill provide for the making of regulations for the keeping of records and statistics, the production and inspection of these records and the submission of extracts, copies and summaries. I think Deputies will agree that these provisions are desirable.

Sections 12 and 13 of the Bill provide for penalties and detention of aircraft. There are two types of penalties, administrative and legal. Administrative penalties can take the form of revocation or suspension of the traffic rights of the airline concerned. The advantage of this type is that it is efficient and can be implemented at once. The disadvantage is that it is on occasion too strong a sanction and may not then be enforceable in that it would mean an unfair punishment on the travelling public. Legal penalties as provided in section 12 of the Bill include fines and/or imprisonment. On summary conviction, the fine proposed in section 12 is £100 or imprisonment for six months or both. On conviction on indictment, the money penalty is raised to £1,000. These sums are of course small as far as airlines are concerned; a more real deterrent is the power of detention of aircraft under section 13 of the Bill. The ultimate sanction would, of course, be denunciation of the bi-lateral agreement with the country of registration of the air operator concerned.

This Bill relates to commercial aviation only and therefore proposes to exclude State aircraft from its scope. The Minister for Transport and Power may, however, by Order, direct that such provisions of the Bill as may be specified in the Order shall apply to State aircraft. A similar provision appears in the 1936 Act, and it is desirable to repeat it here.

The usual provision regarding the laying of Orders and Regulations before the House applies to all Orders and Regulations made under this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

This is a Bill substantially to give effect to the provisions of the Guadalajara Convention and to effect certain amendments to the Warsaw Convention relating to air transport. It is a highly technical measure. We are in the rather peculiar situation here that we have only one airline operating, the Government airline. Therefore, representations regarding matters of this character are not likely to reach the Opposition from interested parties because there is only one interested party so far as our inside operations are concerned and that is the State company. However, I do not suppose there are any provisions in this Bill which are calculated to give rise to legitimate objection by people operating air services in the country but there are only one or two questions which I would like to ask the Minister because they require clarification in the light of his statement.

At page 6 of his statement, the Minister says:

Conditions have changed to such an extent since 1936 as to justify repeal of section 84 and the introduction of the measure proposed in sections 6 and 8 of the present Bill. This enables the Minister for Transport and Power in his discretion to grant an authorisation to any person to operate an air service within the State.

Is it intended that we should grant anybody a licence to operate an air service inside the State other than the national air service, Aer Lingus?

Mr. Childers

There might be an occasion when Aer Lingus did not want to operate and where some other company could operate a service. It is conceivable that it might happen, that it might pay a small air service and would not pay Aer Lingus to do it.

Mr. Dillon

That is what the Minister has in mind — that if some enterprising soul starts a local air service of scheduled flights, he would be authorised to licence him?

Mr. Childers

That is the idea, yes.

Mr. Dillon

I take it the necessity for a licence arises only for a company operating scheduled flights and does not arise in the case of anybody operating chartered flights at the present time?

Mr. Childers

Any flights at all.

Mr. Dillon

So, if I buy an aircraft in the morning and set up offering to carry anybody who wants to pay me from Dublin to Cork, I must hold a licence from the Minister?

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

That is not the position at present?

Mr. Childers

At present the legislation was defective in regard to it. We could not give a licence.

Mr. Dillon

I am not complaining about the Minister having that power but I should like to know is the present situation that anybody wanting to start chartered services could have done so with or without the sanction of the Minister?

Mr. Childers

No. We had the control of the charter flights of these small companies but not of the scheduled flights.

Mr. Dillon

I am happy to think that the Minister would sympathise with my difficulty in treading my way through this legislation when he, after his protracted consideration of it, finds difficulty.

Mr. Childers

If one has to look back at all the legislation and understand it, it requires the genius of a lawyer as well as everything else. It is most complicated.

Mr. Dillon

This is in fact a proposal to bring under the Minister's control not only charter but scheduled flights operated within our territory, no matter who may operate them?

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

I think that is reasonable and proper control which the Minister ought to have but a further question arises in connection with what the Minister says at page 7:

The definition of an air service in this Bill will exclude from the proposed controls private flying, executive type flying and aerial work generally as well as instruction flights.

I can understand the Minister excluding from the proposed controls private flying, executive type flying — I take it that means where a company operates aircraft for the convenience of its executives — but when you come to the question of instruction flights, it occurs to me that that is a matter over which the Minister ought to have power of control and inspection. We have seen in Great Britain and elsewhere——

Mr. Childers

We have full power already, and will continue to have it, of technical inspection, power to grant a licence to the pilot instructor, power to ensure that his plane is airworthy. We have all that. We have full power to make sure that instructor pilots are competent in their job and we have always had that power and will continue to have it.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad, because it is not clear from the Minister's statement that that is so.

Mr. Childers

Not absolutely clear.

Mr. Dillon

At page 7 of his statement, the Minister says:

It is proposed therefore to repeal these Parts and to cancel licences issued under Part X. Fresh authorisations under section 8 of the present Bill will be issued to the holders of existing licences and the conditions and provisions attaching to the new authorisations will as far as practicable be in line with those attaching to the existing licences.

I can follow all that quite clearly, but then he goes on to say:

The definition of an air service in this Bill will exclude from the proposed controls private flying, executive type flying and aerial work generally as well as instruction flights.

Aerial work generally, I take it, means aerial photography, aerial survey and possibly aerial distribution of artificial fertilisers?

Mr. Briscoe

Aerial advertising.

Mr. Dillon

These are things over which I think the Minister should have control. If these words mean that the Minister divests himself of control of flying about with advertisements trailing out of the tail of an airplane or conducting schools to teach private flying, I would be prepared to say to the Minister that I think these are matters over which he ought to retain control.

Mr. Childers

We have full technical control over these matters.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose you find tomorrow that a fellow is flying about over the city of Dublin at the prescribed height but trailing advertisements which the Minister's technical advisers say to him constitute a public hazard, has he power to say to them under the Bill: "You cannot do that?"

Mr. Childers

Yes, We can prohibit him from doing it.

Mr. Dillon

Although I am told, if I understand the words, "the definition of an air service in this Bill will exclude from the proposed controls private flying, executive type flying and aerial work generally as well as instruction flights".

Mr. Childers

That is part of the difficulty about this Bill. It is under earlier legislation that we can do that, which is not being repealed under this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister reassures me, in any case, with regard to the use of aeroplanes for advertising, with regard to the use of aeroplanes for instruction in schools, that he retains control in order to determine that proper degrees of safety are maintained?

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Very well. There is another point I want to raise. It is merely a matter of detail for which there is probably an explanation. The Minister says at page 9:

On summary conviction, the fine proposed in section 12 is £100 or imprisonment for six months or both. On conviction on indictment, the money penalty is raised to £1,000.

Does that carry with it the same alternative of imprisonment?

Mr. Childers

Yes, it carries the same alternative.

Mr. Dillon

The penalty on nonpayment of fine is imprisonment but whom do you imprison? How can you imprison a limited liability company?

Mr. Childers

You have to imprison the pilot or the owner, whoever you can get hold of.

Mr. Dillon

So that you do not know, I do not know, neither of us knows. It might be well to look up how do you imprison a limited liability company.

Mr. Childers

There is something in the regulations about that.

Mr. Dillon

I am not trying to trip the Minister up. I know these complex pieces of legislation are not always easy to prepare in detail but it is just interesting that if you are supposed to fine the subject £100, you are quite resolved to give him six months if he does not pay, but when you speak of conviction on indictment and raise the penalty to £1,000, you do not make any corresponding provision.

The last point of detail I would like to ask the Minister about is this. At paragraph 18 of his statement on page 10, he says:

This Bill relates to commercial aviation only and therefore proposes to exclude State aircraft from its scope.

What does the Minister mean by "State aircraft"?

Mr. Childers

Army planes, customs or police planes. It does not apply to Aer Lingus planes that would be used by the Army, the police or customs authorities.

Mr. Dillon

I am prepared to say that if you are speaking of the Air Force which is under the control of the Minister for Defence, that is understandable, but I very much doubt that the Minister ought to strip himself of power to control through safety regulations aircraft to be used by the customs or by the police. If he does, who is to control them?

Mr. Childers

In actual fact, if the Deputy reads on, he will see that I actually have power to make an Order whereby such provisions of the Bill as I may specify can apply to State aircraft so that if customs authorities bought aircraft for some reason and I thought that there should be some control, I could issue an order.

Mr. Dillon

So long as the Minister says he retains the power, I can agree with him. Where he is dealing with State aircraft as is meant by aircraft under the control and direction of the Minister for Defence, it is reasonable for him to say, as a civil Minister, he does not concern himself with that. However, if on the executive side, say, in the Department of Justice, Posts and Telegraphs or some other Department, it is proposed to use aircraft, I cannot see who is to control them from the point of view of safety if it is not the Minister for Transport and Power. While he could properly overlook military aircraft, he ought to make regulations in regard to aircraft being used by branches of the civil government which would bring them under his general power of control and inspection.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Dillon made a reference at the outset of his remarks to the difficulty of separating commercial airlines from State-owned airlines such as we have here. It is very difficult to appreciate that Aer Lingus and Aerlínte are commercial airlines and at the same time State-owned airlines. This has been confusing me for some considerable time. Our airlines are members of IATA, and the Minister has pointed out that this is the body to which the commercial airlines apply particularly in regard to the fixing of passenger rates and the fixing of air freight commodity prices.

I can understand purely commercial airline companies, which are public companies or private-owned companies but, nevertheless, strictly commercial airlines, having some kind of organisation to prevent unfair competition, to prevent the introduction of conditions which could bring about deterioration in the development of air services generally, but what I cannot understand is that a State-owned organisation should allow itself to be bound by rules, regulations or rates that are arranged purely for commercial companies.

This is not the first time I protested on this matter. Our airlines are State-owned and run as far as possible as a commercial undertaking. However, not enough consideration is given by that company to our national requirements. I have for a number of years examined and followed possibilities of development on the air freight side. If air freight charges are made economic for people who want to use air freight facilities, not only will it bring added trade to our country but it will bring considerable growth in the carrying of freight by our airlines. Apparently the requirements of the nation are to be second to what one might call the commitments of our airlines to IATA.

I have often wondered why a more progressive approach is not made to the development of our air services. It is true that our air services have been more than successful as a commercial undertaking. It is true that they contribute greatly to the arrival here of great numbers of tourists. We should not blind our eyes to the situation that an air service to be successful has to have a two-way traffic and while it brings people here, it also brings our people out. One only has to examine the numbers of Irish people who go abroad as tourists, due to the useful service provided by our airlines, to realise that there may be very little difference as between the outgoings and the incomings.

I have been concerned for a long time with the question of the largescale and rapid development of the air freight service. Air freight service means that perishable goods can be transported long distances without any damaging effect on the goods themselves. However, the rates for freight are such that it is impossible for ordinary commercial people to avail of air transport. If you have a valuable cargo of gold or diamonds, the rates that are current make no difference to the value of the amount of goods being sent but if you have goods which not only are perishable but have to complete in the place of destination of such goods, air freight rates being too high end the possibility of its development.

I could give many instances of items I have in mind but I shall not bore the House with them. If anybody makes investigation into this, they will find that what I say is correct. A State-owned organisation such as Aer Lingus or Aerlínte should hesitate to be bound entirely and absolutely by an international organisation which really was set up for ordinary commercial undertakings. There should be some power remaining with the Minister for Transport and Power here as far as our country is concerned to disagree, if necessary, with a rate fixed for a commodity which adversely affects the possibility of the development of air freight from this country to other countries.

Mr. Childers

I have that power.

Mr. Briscoe

May I say that on any approach I made to our air companies on that matter, I have been told definitely and forcibly "we are bound by IATA and we can make no changes," and there has never been a suggestion "unless the Minister so desires." Therefore, I say the Minister should make it clear — later, if he wants to look it up — that that power is reserved in him and that it will be operated if a suitable case is made.

This is not the occasion to praise or to criticise our air companies. Nevertheless, it is the occasion on which we should make sure that we will not allow our transatlantic or European air services to be hampered by being bound as they are by IATA.

Another point is that we know what takes place at a meeting of such an international organisation. I am told that if a new rate is proposed, a new commodity or any other rate, unless the decision is unanimous, it cannot be passed, that one company can object to a proposal for a new rate and that is the end of it. With the number of companies now operating, with members in an organisation like this, that appears to be an impossible situation. If it were a matter of a majority decision, one could see some reason to it. I remember some years ago approaching a transatlantic airline, during the time when our operations here had been suspended, to get a commodity rate for a perishable line of goods for export to the USA. The company concerned were quite satisfied this was a proposal that would have a good future but when they put it to a meeting of IATA, they found it was being objected to by Aer Lingus, although, as I say, at the time there was no transatlantic line operating between Ireland and the United States. That is the kind of thing I believe is objectionable when it is a question of trying to ensure that our exports can be improved and developed and it is necessary to employ air carriage to develop them.

I should like the Minister to make a study of this to see what our company's commitments are in being members of IATA and to see to what extent the State is committed to rules and regulations and conditions of an organisation which, I repeat, was set up purely for the purpose of keeping some order among the commercial undertakings.

General MacEoin

As Deputy Dillon said, this is a very technical Bill and I am disappointed that the Minister on such an important matter did not see fit to give us a more elaborate explanation of what the law is at present and what alterations are to be made. It appears to me that in this Bill we are giving power to the Minister to make regulations on anything and everything. While that may be desirable and necessary because conditions and circumstances are changing and, as Deputy Briscoe properly pointed out, one set of people who are parties to this international agreement may say: "No, we will not have it," and then take what steps they like, the Minister should have given some indication of how the agreement was operating and what defects he saw on the international side as well as what steps he was taking to protect national interests.

It is important that in regard to all flights in the country, whether they are under the control of the Army, the Navy, the customs or anybody else, there should be a governing principle to make sure as far as humanly possible that safety precautions are taken. We know that in other countries serious accidents have occurred because planes were flying where they should not fly or flying in a way they should not fly. As conditions obtain now, we could reach a point within the next ten years at which we may require traffic regulations for the air space over Dublin, just as we have traffic regulations in the streets. That may appear to be a bit far-fetched but I can assure the House that as far back as 1954 in Buenos Aires, there was an amazing number of people who had small planes to bring in fresh milk and fresh eggs, for which they had contracts, to the city, and they parked along a race-course. There were as many small planes parked as there were cars in a square. Both the Army and commercial people were complaining at that time that it was impossible to control these people and that they flew at whatever heights suited them and were a menace to all concerned.

The Minister may have power to deal with such matters. He should tell us whether he has or not. In introducing a Bill such as this, he should have specifically stated what powers he has and what additional powers, if any, he is taking. The question of excluding certain people is, I presume, all right but the Minister says he has authority to make regulations for them, or he appeared to indicate in reply to Deputy Dillon that he had, but I should like to see it more specifically stated. In regard to the question of punishment, I take it that it follows from the fact that where a fine of £100 and six months imprisonment is imposed, that when a fine of £1,000 is imposed, it means the imprisonment would be for six years because the imprisonment operates on the same scale for the larger sum as the smaller sum. Therefore, I presume the Minister means that if a pilot is convicted on indictment, he may be fined up to £1,000 or given six years imprisonment, or both.

Mr. Briscoe

Five years. It is a matter of simple mathematics.

General MacEoin

I shall settle for five, though it is a very serious offence. However, it is a highly technical Bill and I suggest the Minister should have given us a much more exhaustive explanatory memorandum on its implications. He should have shown us lucidly exactly what he intends doing. On the question of charges and tariffs, he should have told us how these operate at the moment, whether he is satisfied with the position or whether he would like to see the provisions amended and, if so, how far. He should have indicated what powers he would like to have and, if it is not possible to give him those powers, whether he should seek to secure them by international agreement.

I am not satisfied with the manner in which the Bill has been presented. As I have said, it is a very technical measure. Air traffic is developing and progressing, and legislation which today may be perfectly all right, may be obsolete in a short space of time. The Minister should have told us that and explained what the position is likely to be in, say, five years. It appears to be an essential Bill.

Mr. Crinion

As far as possible, we should try to introduce legislation in keeping with international Conventions, particularly in such matters as air traffic. The Conventions governing air traffic have been set up to regulate fares for the different routes throughout the world. In Ireland we have one of the few airlines in the world which has been able to pay its way. Most of the world's airlines are bigger than ours but we have beaten them all from the point of view of viability, though many of the bigger air companies are subsidised by their respective Governments.

The secret of the success of our airline is that we go most carefully into the selection of routes. We do not choose our routes for prestige purposes as do some of the other airlines. Last year, BOAC had to pull out of South America which obviously was a prestige route. We have always complied with Convention regulations in regard to air fares.

As others have said, this is a very technical Bill but there are many provisions in it which will affect future air traffic into the country. In matters of air transport, you cannot retain for long, say, the green lights you have in O'Connell Street and in other such streets in our cities: we must have the most up-to-date technical equipment for such matters as the provision of thousand-foot ceilings for the stacking of planes over our airports and so forth. Therefore, we must be very careful in dealing with the technical aspects of air traffic, particularly when we consider the number of lives at stake.

Even under present legislation, according to statisticians, one is safer travelling by air than by any other form of transport. It is all the more important, therefore, that we keep up with the times and in touch with the improvements being carried out in other countries and at other airports. We have been voicing our opinions very forcibly at international conferences. They have been listened to and in fact one of our Aer Lingus officials has been President of the International Conference. That is another reason why we must conform with international Conventions.

This Bill will tidy up quite a number of Acts and bring them up-to-date. It will prepare us for what is coming in air transport in the years ahead. Aer Lingus, as I have said, has been doing a very good job, not alone in paying its way but in bringing tourists to the country. I have travelled on quite a number of airlines and have no hesitation in saying that Aer Lingus has something extra to add. Possibly it is the hostesses, but the entire service is second to none. This has been given recognition in hard figures of £s. d. It is the company's efficient service that has achieved those results. We have an excellent record of safety, having had only one crash, in the Welsh mountains, some years ago. I do not think any airline in the world has such an excellent safety record. Our accidentfree record has been the result of the extra precautions we have been taking over the years.

The House should always agree to the enactment of any legislation that will help us to keep that safety record intact because an air accident can take a terrible toll of lives. So that we can keep our record and, in order to keep that record, we must keep in touch with what is happening in air transport and air development. Air transport is growing and it is inevitable that there must be new regulations. This Bill brings old regulations up to date and introduces new ones. It is a very technical Bill but I welcome it because it is designed to keep us abreast of the times from the point of view of air transport.

Dr. Browne

I welcome the Bill. Proper control of air traffic is very important and it is something that should be subject to international agreement. We have a magnificent air service and it is only right that we should be a party to this Agreement in order that, putting it at its lowest, our aircraft will get facilities from the countries which expect facilities from us.

The last speaker spoke of the magnificent record of both Aer Lingus and Aerlínte. It is only proper to draw the Minister's attention to the achievements of this State company. It is one of the extraordinary contradictions of the Minister's life that he spends most of his political time telling us the magnificent benefits to be derived from private enterprise while, at the same time, he administers a Department devoted almost exclusively to the supervision of State companies of one kind or another. That is a point that should be made when discussing these matters. All these organisations were built up from practically non-existent services to their present remarkable level of efficiency, competency and reliability. There was no background knowledge; the technicians, the pilots, the technocrats, the administrative staff and the directorate needed to operate these services all came forward from the ordinary people. We built up these services without any significant outside assistance or know-how.

The Minister should learn something from that when he is being critical of State enterprises of one kind or another. Everybody can be very proud of the remarkable safety record, long may it last, of both Aer Lingus and Aerlínte, to say nothing of their universally accepted record of courtesy, punctuality and complete reliability. Theirs is a tremendous achievement.

The need for air traffic control is self-evident. The growth of air traffic is quite phenomenal. Most passengers, if they appreciated the growth of air traffic into Dublin or into the Greater London airports, would probably be rather frightened at the prospect. There is the difficulty of maintaining the schedule of inflow and out flow. All this is achieved with remarkable efficiency. Traffic flows as fast as it can. It grows heavier every day. In the midst of all that, there is the constant endeavour to keep the accident rate to what we hope is an irreducible minimum and that is really the origin of the need for international agreements of this kind.

The Minister mentioned some powers for fixing air fares and the extent to which we here could decide what air fare to charge. The implication seemed to be that he is free to make any decision he wants. In section 10 the phrase appears "The Minister may in his absolute discretion..." Are not air fares fixed by what is effectively an international cartel, of which we are a member? If that is so, then the Minister has not in fact absolute discretion. He is bound by international agreement. This seems to me to be so much wishful thinking. It would be nice to think he had absolute discretion but it strikes me that he has not. On occasion certain air companies have tried to reduce fares and found they were bound by this type of international agreement to retain a particular level of air fare.

A previous speaker referred to the fact that we are not operating a prestige type of enterprise. Other airlines have tried uneconomic propositions. Our airlines provide only what they regard as an economic proposition from the point of view of service. To what extent are we hindered in extending the scope of our air transport to the maximum number of people by a reduction of fares because we are compelled to keep our fares level with those companies which indulge in prestige air services? To what extent can Pakistani Airlines run a service to London? Can they afford to run one to New York? Is it justified? Is it an economic proposition? It is the same with Air India and British Overseas Airways which used to fly to South America. To what extent is there a costly factor in the structure because of these type of prestige services? To what extent are we bound to maintain a high fare, a fare which could be reduced if the service were run in a more levelheaded way, the way our airlines are run. We have a service to New York and to London. To what extent has the Minister or Aer Lingus any discretion in fixing fares in the face of this international cartel?

The Minister referred to raising the compensation from £3,000 to £6,000. In the case of the scheduled airlines one has some sort of redress. What is the position in the case of charter planes? There are mushroom companies with no really sound financial backing. Are there arrangements whereby such companies must lodge money to an amount which might compensate if there were a catastrophe? To what extent can compensation be recovered? I am speaking of the charter plane that can be rented by somebody for a flight to London, New York or anywhere you like, which gets into trouble and crashes. If culpable negligence can be proved, the company may find itself liable for tremendous costs. How can those costs be recovered when such a plane crashes with large loss of life and the next-of-kin are trying to collect compensation? Is there any fund like the Road Fund or agreement amongst insurance companies whereby compensation will be paid in respect of the passengers in that type of plane? Does the company have to be party to any kind of international insurance? Can compensation be recovered if it is of a sufficiently high level?

We have regulations here requiring companies to operate certain services and carry out certain kinds of maintenance. When it comes to an airline which has been in breach of some or any of these regulations which we feel are necessary for safety or any other reason, what are our powers to bring those in default of our regulations before a court or an inquiry or to apply whatever other disciplinary measure we choose to impose? Has the Minister any real power in such a situation? If the aeroplane has left our territory, has the Minister any redress? Is there anything comparable with, say extradition from one country to another? Is there any arrangement whereby the company in default of this Convention in respect of one country like Ireland can be, in trade terms, "blacked" as far as the rest of the members are concerned? Can they be brought to book by the country against which they have committed the offence by the co-operation of other countries party to the Convention? What action are we liable to take in circumstances of this kind?

I was interested to see that small aircraft of the executive, pleasure and instructional type are not subject to this legislation, but only subject to the ordinary rules of air safety. Possibly it is rather too cumbersome to expect these smaller type craft to run the administrative services which would be required to fulfil all the needs of a commercial airline. However, in view of the tremendous expansion there inevitably will be in smaller type aircraft, such as executive craft, is the Minister satisfied that he has sufficient control? These craft, being in the air, can be a very serious danger to the great passenger aircraft. Is the Minister satisfied with this position in regard to private aircraft?

Recently, I asked a question in regard to the air traffic control personnel. It struck me that there appeared to be a rather excessive amount of overtime and so on in regard to these duties. Is the Minister satisfied that excessive overtime is not worked by these people? There is probably no other service in which people need to be more wide awake and able to cope with stresses than in a job of this kind. Is there international agreement on the length of time people should work in duties of this sort — the radar scanners and various other people who operate the flow in and out of our airports? Are there standard conditions of service for these operatives?

Mr. Childers

It is not dealt with in this Bill.

Dr. Browne

One can only honour one's obligations in regard to air safety if one is using one's operatives in the most careful possible way.

I see that State aircraft are exempted from this Bill. Presumably, this refers to military aircraft? What is the position in regard to them? Is there any agreement at all between countries? Is it permissible for one country to fly at any particular height over the territory of another? Is there any sort of 12 mile limit as far as military aircraft are concerned? If there are flights over our territory, is notice given or required? Why is it that State aircraft are excluded from a Bill of this kind? If a passenger aircraft is hit by a State aircraft rather than an executive craft or a passenger craft, it does not matter very much to the passengers in the other plane. Is there a separate Convention in regard to State aircraft? Is that the reason they are excluded from the scope of this Bill? Otherwise, the Bill seems to be admirable in every way. If it adds at all to the safety record of our aircraft and other aircraft using our air space, then it is absolutely essential that it should be put through without delay.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Browne raised the question of State companies which, of course, does not arise on this Bill at all. I think he should already know that I approve of State companies on a pragmatic basis, not on a philosophical basis. That is the difference between Dr. Browne and myself but we can go a long way together on that before we disagree.

Mr. Dillon

Not after the B. & I. Bill yesterday.

Mr. Childers

That was for pragmatic reasons, not for reasons of socialism. Deputy Briscoe suggested that the actions of IATA were restrictive and that we would have a greater volume of traffic if the fares were reduced. Aer Lingus is a public company founded on State funds but it operates on commercial lines, and for such a company, it is reasonable to have a body such as IATA whose rules will be accepted by the members and in the making of which all the members will have a say. Otherwise, you would have widespread chaos which would result in some air lines being heavily loaded and others losing money.

While it is true that nothing is more expensive than an empty plane because of the high capital costs, it is equally true that it is possible to carry goods at totally uneconomic prices. If you add all the running costs and head-quarters costs to the cost of operation, you have to make certain that if you are going to reduce fares, the net result will be economic. You have to be sure that the result will not be that the aircraft will be losing money for the company.

In actual fact, it is true that regulations proposed by IATA have to be agreed unanimously. That involves a great number of meetings but it is true to say that through these meetings numerous changes have been made in the right direction, in the reduction of air freight rates, in changes in rates for particular commodities, the arrangement of new commodity rates and in other ways. In the case of the air freight rates across the Atlantic, there were some changes that were very much to our advantage in relation to the differential rates between New York and Shannon and New York and London where, before, the rates were the same. There have been changes in relation to bulk rates and the point at which reductions could be made for a given minimum cargo which, we hope, may lead to the use of the warehouses at Shannon. The whole of that picture is constantly changing.

One of the things that may make all Governments think again is the changes that may take place in the cost of running airplanes. We hope there will be reductions to come in this and Mr. Dempsey, General Manager of Aer Lingus, both as President of IATA and in his capacity as General Manager, has been urging constantly that more research should be done in the matter of low cost planes covering medium distances. If some of the money now diverted to supersonic planes were devoted to the development of mass air traffic, it is possible that it would lead to the reduction of fares.

The growth of containerisation by sea transport, particularly in the area surrounding Shannon, has given a temporary fillip of competition to sea transport on a marginal basis where an importer asks himself whether he should use the alternative of a fast container service by sea transport or use air transport. That has heightened competition in many areas and it may cause air companies to take action to see if they can get a reduction or modification in air rates by way of bulk rates and special commodity rates. May I say also to Deputy Briscoe that air freight is increasing enormously? I have not got the figures with me but at Dublin Airport it has been increasing at the rate of 16 per cent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent per annum in recent years, if I can remember the figures correctly.

Deputy Browne asked whether in fact I have legal power to approve or disapprove of IATA fares. We are clarifying that question in this Bill by making it obviously clear that when the Bill is passed, I will have power to approve or disapprove of a particular set of fares. Deputy Browne also asks if IATA is an international cartel. The answer to that is that by and large all the Governments have for years agreed to the general fare regulations of IATA. Where they had not, companies have fought for lower or higher fares. You get groups of countries arguing in order to represent the interests of particular administrations who feel that the air fare in a particular area is too high or too low. You have these countries seeking the support of other countries for their case and you get modifications in that way.

It would be possible to refuse to accept a particular structure of air fares, in which case IATA would have to meet again to discuss the matter. In that case if we had an agreement with some other country or countries, it would be open to us to negotiate with them in the matter in order to reduce or modify the IATA fares. So far as possible, we should try to avoid international chaos in air fares through the operation of IATA and there has been a good deal of flexibility in these matters.

There was a case recently where there was a tremendous feeling that passenger rates ought to be reduced on the Atlantic. IATA took a certain view and the American Government took another view. In the end there was a further examination of the problem and the changes that took place as a result will be for the better. We can only look at this matter from the pragmatic point of view. The system works reasonably well and the amount of co-operation by the members of IATA has been successful. There is power to bring pressure on other members in IATA and, on the whole, there has been fairly intelligent thinking on these matters. Deputy Browne asked about charter aircraft and liability for damages in those cases. A great number of countries have come to an agreement that is not covered by this Bill through the International Civil Aviation Organisation whereby charter planes must have adequate insurance to cover possible compensation and a great number of countries have subscribed to this regulation. So, when charter planes come to this country we can generally assume that if they come from the countries from which travellers generally come the country itself has agreed to this compulsory insurance principle. So that, even although the Hague Convention and the Warsaw Convention may not apply in this particular case, in fact there is coverage.

Similarly in reply to Deputy Dr. Browne, insurance in our case is obligatory for instructional aircraft. It is not obligatory for private aircraft but I think in most cases insurance of that kind is taken in the interest of the party. A civil action can be taken in the ordinary way against the owner of a private aircraft which causes damage to himself or to passengers but we have not insisted, on giving a licence, that there should be insurance and, so far, I have not had any complaints in regard to that.

In reply to Deputy Dr. Browne, I am satisfied with the general air safety regulations that we have enacted. I should say that I do not think I am supposed to give an account on the occasion of this Bill of all the legislation that now exists; it would take a very long time; but perhaps I should have said in connection with the Bill that all the legislation governing air safety in general, the licensing and inspection and regulation of aerodromes, the control of flights, air traffic control, are all contained in Part II of the Air Navigation Transport Act, 1946, which is not being repealed or reenacted in this Bill. That all remains as legislation that has already been passed by the Oireachtas and which, in fact, has proved generally to be very successful.

Again in reply to Deputy Dr. Browne there is an order prohibiting over-flights by military aircraft. Permission has to be secured from the Department of External Affairs and is given only under compliance with Air Traffic Control.

I think I have answered all the questions that have been asked. As I have said, Deputy MacEoin suggested that I should have said more on this Bill but I hope the Second Reading made it clear that, apart from our adhering to the ICAO Convention, most of it was re-enaction for the sake of certainty, that I had certain powers in previous legislation and I did clarify the extent to which the legislation was being altered. I hoped I made it sufficiently clear. Maybe I am now making it clear that that is the position.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

Mr. Dillon

The Minister could have it now.

Mr. Childers

There are some departmental amendments.

Mr. Dillon

We can offer to help. Are they amendments of substance?

Mr. Childers

They are not quite ready at the moment.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3rd March, 1965.