Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1975

Vol. 281 No. 9

Air Navigation and Transport Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to enable effect to be given in Irish domestic law to the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation which was drawn up at Montreal on 23rd September, 1971. The convention came into force internationally on 26th January, 1973 after the tenth ratification was made and is now in operation between 59 states. Many of the states with which we have regular air services, for example the US, the UK, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands have already ratified. Two previous conventions, the Tokyo and Hague, dealt primarily with offences committed on board aircraft particularly hijacking and the development of a uniform international legal code to combat the hijacking problem. The Montreal Convention deals with sabotage and other offences against civil aviation.

The Tokyo Convention which was drawn up in 1965 was intended as a means of international co-operation to make offences aboard aircraft amenable to law. It conferred certain powers on aircraft commanders as regards treatment of offenders. The convention also dealt with hijacking offences and the obligation of states with regard to an offender. It did not, however, require that an offender be punished. Not surprisingly, it was felt that the convention did not deal adequately with hijacking offences and a further convention was drawn up at The Hague in 1970. This provided for the definition of hijacking as an international offence, the establishment of jurisdiction over it and its punishment by heavy penalties. Both these conventions were given legislative effect by the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1973.

The Montreal Convention deals with a wider range of offences against civil aviation including armed attacks and other forms of sabotage against aircraft and aviation installations and facilities. It provides that a person commits an offence if he performs an act of violence which is likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft, damages or destroys an aircraft or places a device on board which would endanger the aircraft's safety. It is also an offence to destroy air navigation facilities or to communicate information known to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. A person also commits an offence if he conspires in any way with someone who commits any of the offences specified. As in the case of The Hague Convention, the Montreal Convention creates international jurisdiction for the offences and all offences are punishable by severe penalties.

This Bill makes offences against civil aviation which I have outlined, amenable to Irish law irrespective of where they are committed.

This gives full effect to the convention and is similar to the provision in respect of hijacking in the 1973 Act. As in the 1973 Act, the Bill goes beyond the terms of the convention in that it extends to offences committed against aircraft and installations used for domestic flights; the convention confined itself to offences of an international nature. The Bill, therefore, gives the greatest possible protection to all forms of civil aviation.

The 1973 Act dealt comprehensively with powers of a commander as regards restraint of a person who jeopardises the safety of an aircraft. While the Montreal Convention does not require such provisions, the Bill does give the commander additional powers to prevent a suspected person from boarding an aircraft or to remove him from it. It further required the commander to notify the appropriate authority that he had done so. The Bill, Deputies will notice, also contains similar provisions to the Act of 1973 as regards extradition arrangements.

As you will see, the offences covered by the Bill are quite comprehensive, and coupled with the earlier Act of 1973, provide a very marked deterrent to the potential hijacker and saboteur and bestows effective powers to deal with those guilty of such crimes. However, while this legislation goes a long way towards making civil aviation safer against security threats, it cannot be expected that it will remove such threats entirely.

Civil aviation has proved itself highly vulnerable to attack world-wide in recent years. Apart from the implementation of our international obligations, which this Bill will complete, we are taking all practical measures possible to secure the safety of air transport. It would be inappropriate for me to detail these measures but the House can rest assured that the security forces of the State, Aer Rianta, Aer Lingus and other interests concerned are fully alive to the dangers involved and are taking effective measures to deal with the situation. In order to co-ordinate our efforts and keep our security measures under constant review, I have set up a National Civil Aviation Security Committee representative of the Government Departments concerned, including the Garda and Defence Forces, Aer Rianta, Aer Lingus and the Irish Airline Pilots' Association. In addition local airport security committees are functioning at each of the three airports. The measures being taken cause considerable inconvenience to passengers but this is inevitable and passengers must, and do, accept that safety comes before convenience.

I commend this Bill to the House. The Bill is not a controversial one because, as I have stated, its main purpose is to give force in Irish law to the provisions of an international instrument designed to promote aviation security on a world-wide scale and in particular to protect the safety of passengers and air crews who are at such serious risk in all forms of attack on civil aviation.

The Government can be assured that they have our full support on this Bill as they had for the previous Bill in 1973. As the Minister said, this Bill gives effect to the Montreal Convention, and we agree with what is contained in it. It is our duty, as it is the Government's, to ensure the safety of all air passengers and to try to eliminate the threat of hijacking which has been so prevalent in recent years, and to ensure that adequate punishment is meted out to those who are involved in it, whether for political reasons or monetary gain which is also the objective of some of the potential hijackers and of some of those of whom we have had experience in the past in different parts of the world.

The best possible facilities should be made available to ensure that we play our full part in civil aviation. We are a country which is very much involved internationally because of our situation, with an airport which is the nearest to the north Atlantic countries. Our concern should extend to air traffic control which was recently in the news. The question was raised whether we should be involved in Eurocontrol. We believe we should. When we were in Government we believed we should be involved in Eurocontrol and we took the necessary steps to set it up here and welcomed it as something for the good of air navigation all over the world. Moreover, it was run and paid for by the EEC. We welcome the opportunity of our own trained air traffic control personnel of working for Eurocontrol and being paid in accordance with the standards enjoyed by their European staff in other places.

Recently we were disappointed at the announcement that we were not going to participate in Eurocontrol, as was originally envisaged on 1st January, 1976. The reasons put forward did not impress us on this side of the House or the people who were directly involved, the personnel who work there. I understand there is already an investment of something in the region of £4 million by Eurocontrol in the western part of the country in their endeavour to comply with what was originally agreed and is to start on 1st January, 1976. The personnel would be mainly Irish, some of whom are already trained and, naturally working for Eurocontrol, they would be paid by European standards and would be fully entitled to be so paid. We believe this project should go ahead as originally intended from 1st January next. No obstacle should be put in its way.

The Minister gave as his reason that it would have an adverse effect on our employees in the public service if the staff transferred from air traffic control to Eurocontrol were to be paid by European standards. We do not accept that. Any such statement is contrary to the EEC concept as to how the Community will function. There are many instances of people working here for European concerns who are paid by European standards and we see no evidence of adverse effects on the pay structure of other public servants in our employment.

One example which compares with Eurocontrol is the Foundation for Improvement of Living and Working Conditions which was announced recently and welcomed by the Minister for Labour. The headquarters of this foundation are to be in Ireland and the personnel will be mainly Irish but will be paid by European standards. Nobody thought that would have an adverse effect on public employment here. Another Minister also welcomed it. We find it difficult to see how participation in Eurocontrol could have the adverse effect the Minister fears. This is the sole reason he gave, as far as I know—the adverse effect on other public employees in the present inflationary situation.

I understand our own air traffic control personnel are not paid as well as other nationals in this sphere, not nearly as well paid as their counterparts employed by the British. There is serious need for a proper grading system because they are vital to our air traffic and to other airlines as well as to our own. We cannot understand why they should be deprived of this opportunity of bettering themselves under Eurocontrol at the expense of Eurocontrol, not at the expense of our own Government, when already the foundations have been laid for this project and substantial investment already undertaken in it even to the extent of training some of the personnel. At Woodcock Hill in Creeslough about £500,000 have been invested by Eurocontrol. There is a radar installation in the Minister's county, in West Cork, which cost £1.25 million and there are further investments in equipment, I understand, to the extent of £1.75 million. This is now to be written off or the project is to be put on the long finger and the only reason given is the serious adverse effect paying people in the Shannon or West Cork regions at Eurocontrol level would have on other employees in the public sector. This reason is not adequate because we already have people here who are paid under EEC on European standards with no adverse effect on the remainder of the public sector. This reason for not going ahead with Eurocontrol does not reflect any credit on whomever thought of it. It is wrong to deprive Irish people who are already trained of this opportunity. It is Eurocontrol policy to employ Irish people as far as possible. They would get a better standard of living on higher pay in the West of Ireland and their purchasing power would benefit the entire community in their locality.

The Minister has made a serious error and should do something to remedy it and ensure that we participate in Eurocontrol from 1st January next as originally agreed. We supplied the President for 1969 or 1970 fully intending to go ahead with this project. We now find a different picture and for a totally inadequate reason not justified by experience of the effect that European standards of payment have had on our economy or on the public service payment structure.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but he is wrong in his assumption, because we are going ahead.

I think the Deputy is going a bit too much outside the scope of the Bill, which is primarily concerned with hijacking and such matters.

But it also deals with air navigation, and this matter is very much involved with air navigation. As regards what the Minister has just said, a statement was issued saying that we were not going ahead.

No, that is wrong.

I understand the President of the permanent Commission had been informed that we will not be going ahead.

That is wrong. That was the interpretation given by Fianna Fáil to my letter to the President, but it is not correct.

Did the Minister's letter not say that we would not go ahead from 1st January?

No. The station is being officially opened next month.

I am only going on the evidence before me. It is news to me that it is being officially opened.

I suppose the Deputy accepts my word.

Naturally, but I want to make my position clear. The Minister did inform the President that he was unable to agree that Eurocontrol should assume responsibility for the operation of the Shannon centre from 1 January, 1976.

That is right, but we are going ahead as Members of Eurocontrol and we are operating the station as agents of Eurocontrol. We are going ahead and all the facilities will be used.

Our staff will not be paid by European standards?

No, they will be employed by Ireland and we shall act as agents for Eurocontrol. They will continue to be paid at present rates as negotiated between the Irish Government and the air traffic controllers.

But if we did go ahead as originally intended on 1 January, 1976, they would be paid on European standards.

The Deputy is making the point that we are not going ahead with our membership of Eurocontrol. We are. I am the Vice President and all these installations will be opened as a Eurocontrol operation next month. We will operate the station as agents of Eurocontrol; it will not be operated directly by Eurocontrol. That is the difference.

I accept what the Minister says, but we are still cutting out the advantage that was there for the employees of being paid by European standards. They should be fully entitled to this.

That is not the point the Deputy made. He said that expensive installations had been erected which are now of no use. That is not so.

I withdraw that part of it but I insist that although we will be operating as agents of Eurocontrol our employees will continue to be paid as they are now. If we are to fulfil what was intended originally I maintain that they should be paid in accordance with European standards, but they are being deprived of this right.

Acting Chairman

The Chair would draw attention to the fact that in the main this is outside the scope of the Bill. The Deputy has made the point but it is not one which represents the main purpose of the Bill, that is the provision of regulations and safety measures to combat hijacking.

With respect, in section 7 there is reference to Eurocontrol.

Acting Chairman

The Second Reading speech deals with matters which are in the Bill and which are relevant to it. The point made by the Deputy is not one that can be laboured unduly.

We welcome the Bill. It is in line with the serious attempts that have been made through the world in recent years to eliminate hijacking. We assure the Minister of our full support in having the Bill put through the House in the minimum time possible.

I wish to intervene briefly and, without annoying Deputies opposite, to draw the attention of the House and I hope of the country to the fact that the Bill before the House today which has been welcomed so generously by Deputy Barrett is a Bill which is intended to give effect to the principle of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. If that principle were established in our Irish law for all offences—if it were an ordinary part of our domestic law that all offences could be treated automatically as offences against our law —this Bill would not be necessary. However, that is not the case and, as the House knows, the kinds of case in which crimes committed outside the limits of the State are punishable by Irish courts exist only within narrow limits and, on the whole, are exceptional.

This Bill creates a further set of exceptions to meet the exceptional circumstances of a modern age in which the growth of savagery—ex-emplified by the holding of innocent hostages, by the hijacking and destruction of aircraft and by the commission of dangerous acts on board aircraft merely to make a political point—has reached a situation where it was necessary, almost four years ago, for contracting parties to the Montreal Convention to undertake to extend the domestic laws of their own countries so as to render offences of this kind punishable in their own States wherever such offences were committed.

In common with the Minister. I regard the extension of national jurisdiction in this way to be totally justifiable and necessary, because the people of the world have a common interest in combating savagery and barbarism, and in establishing a fact which seems everyday to be cast under more doubt, that is, that man is the superior creature on the planet, that something separates him from the animals. It is in response to that necessity, which all sides would recognise, that this Bill is before us.

The principle which we are accepting so uncontentiously today is exactly the same as that which has proved a subject of such serious contention in connection with another Bill that is before the other House and which, I hope, will be before this House shortly.

I admit that this Bill contains no special provisions regarding the taking of evidence of a kind which is to be found in the other Bill, that is, the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill. I admit, also, that there are difficulties and complex technicalities in that Bill which the Opposition would be perfectly right to thrash out so as to ensure that we get it right before it becomes law, but the principle behind that other Bill is exactly the same as that behind this Bill.

Acting Chairman

I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that this hardly arises on this Bill. While he has made a very good point I do not think it is relevant.

I accept your ruling, Sir. Let me say in connection with this Bill that it does not contain any special provision in regard to the taking of evidence. Therefore, unless there is something in the Bill which I have missed, I presume that the ordinary laws of evidence will apply, in the case of an offence with which someone is charged under this Bill after it has been enacted, namely, rules of evidence whereby evidence, apart from exceptional circumstances, would be oral evidence given before the court at the normal place of sitting and which would be capable of cross-examination and so on. However, it must be admitted that anyone trying to enforce this Bill will be faced with difficulties of a practical nature. If, for example, somebody commits a dangerous act on an aircraft flying, say, over Bulgaria and the aircraft subsequently lands at Shannon it may not be all that easy to get evidence from Bulgarian pilots or, in the event of the plane landing in Bulgaria, from Bulgarian airport officials as to what exactly went on. In the absence of such evidence all the court here could do would be to acquit the accused.

While I welcome Deputy Barrett's acceptance of the Bill, and without intending to annoy him or any of his colleagues, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill is not self-executing. There are difficulties connected with its application which will show up in practice. It is because these difficulties might be particularly sensitive and severe that in the other legislation to which the Chair has allowed me to advert briefly, special provisions which have caused such difficulties for the conscience of others had to be introduced. I, too, commend the Bill to the House.

The title of this Bill is Air Navigation and Transport Bill, 1974. It is not the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill of any year. If the Parliamentary Secretary were so interested in having a Second Reading speech of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill he could have introduced it in this House rather than to chase off to the Seanad and then chose for a vote a day when he knew people would not be there to vote.

Acting Chairman

This does not arise on the Bill before us.

The suggestion that anybody on this side of the House is in favour of barbarism or savagery——

I never said that.

The insinuation was that the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill was being contested in the Seanad—as it will be contested on the floor of this House—because we were in favour of savagery. That is not and never has been the case. The day for the taking of a vote on the Bill was one which was suitable politically because people who had spoken against it were not available to vote.

If they were so interested, what was stopping them from being there to vote?

The Parliamentary Secretary should discuss that question with his colleagues.

The people opposite have tried to keep the Bill out of this House by proposing that the Committee Stage in the Seanad should not be taken until September.

We are discussing the Air Navigation and Transport Bill, 1974, which is merely a ratification of the Montreal Convention. It is designed to safeguard air passengers and crews, owners of airlines and their property, and the rights of individuals operating on planes and around airports. I should like to join with my colleague, Deputy Barrett, in welcoming this Bill. Any international agreement which gives protection to air passengers and crews is to be welcomed.

I should like to hear the Minister's views on the question of arrest as provided for in section 4. This section provides for arrests by gardaí, but it should be remembered that airports are under the control of special security staff. Would it not be better to extend this power of arrest to this security staff?

There is reason for this, and I will give the Deputy that reason when replying.

None of us are anxious to support legislation that will lead to delays at airports, but air travellers have no objection to delays if those delays mean they can board an aircraft with a feeling of security. I should also like to bring to the attention of the Minister the provisions of section 7. Under that section the commander of an aircraft is liable to a fine of £100 if he does not report an incident which occurs during the flight. In posing this question I am thinking of the traveller who, after having a few jars, becomes obstreperous. It is open to interpretation whether that traveller, by his actions, was endangering the aircraft or whether he was simply causing a nuisance. A pilot who fails to report such an incident is liable to a fine of £100. To impose such a fine on a pilot is severe. They have enough responsibility and worries about the various navigational and other mechanisms involved in an aircraft without having to concern themselves about an interpretation of a section of this Bill.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Barrett in relation to Eurocontrol. During the course of the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power I raised this matter and I was informed by the Minister that I had made a mistake. We have a European control zone here and the staff employed there should be paid at the European rate. The device used by the Minister in order not to pay the European rate means that Ireland operates this on an agency basis with Irish staff who are paid at the Irish rate. We should get as much as possible for our people, and the Eurocontrol staff should be paid European rates.

The Minister informed me that if the staff were paid European rates it would cause certain social difficulties, but his reasons would apply to all other European agencies here. However, some staff employed by European agencies here are paid at the European rate. I hope that when further European agencies are established the Irish staff recruited will be paid the proper rate. The Minister should reconsider his stand in this regard.

In welcoming this Bill I should like to state that I abhor the asides of the Parliamentary Secretary who made an attempt, a cheap political manoeuvre, to make a Second Stage speech on the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill. If the Parliamentary Secretary was so concerned about this he could have had the debate on this Bill in this House rather than chasing after the Seanad and ensuring that the Second Stage of it was passed when the two Government Senators who spoke against it were not available.

I welcome the measures in this Bill. In general most democratic states have been easy or soft on people who committed acts of piracy in the last few years. No determined attempt has been made to stamp out that activity. Such acts always make the headlines and gain a lot of publicity for the individuals or the extreme organisations involved. The measures in the Bill are necessary but I should like the Minister to ensure that, as far as his jurisdiction goes, the convenience of passengers is taken into consideration at all times.

In travelling to Europe we experience a great difficulty going through Heathrow. It is absolutely unnecessary that passengers from here en route to Europe should have to go through three security checks and two passport identity checks while in flight. While I agree with the necessity for stringent security and checks on passengers there is a distinct discrimination against passengers travelling from here at Heathrow. That is wrong. Citizens of the Irish Republic, whether they have Irish passports or Community passports, are forced by Her Majesty's Forces, rightly or wrongly, to fill in identification forms. This is despite the fact that under many of the Articles of Accession there is supposed to be free movement not only of workers but of parliamentarians. I would ask the Minister to look into this matter. It should be possible to have special provision made for transit passengers. It is most inconvenient for passengers on the new bigger aircraft to have to queue up for up to three-quarters of an hour to have luggage checked. This happens three times in a flight that takes no more than two and two-third hours. It is unfair.

The fare has escalated almost 100 per cent in the last couple of years. Yet passengers are being victimised and are getting a bad service. Having regard to the cost of the security checks and the services, it ought to be possible to have more regard shown for passengers and to treat them with a little more respect.

I certainly hold no brief for persons who use violence for political ends. We have experienced it in both parts of this country. It is quite noticeable that on occasions when dastardly deeds such as bomb attacks have been carried out in the UK—I sympathise with those who have been injured or maimed on such occasions—some of the people manning security check points, in the UK especially, treated persons holding Irish passports in a very harsh manner. This is unnecessary.

The transit lounges are separate from the others and it should be possible to ferry passengers in and out without their having to stand for three-quarters of an hour each time one lands. We have experienced great difficulty in getting to some European meetings. When going to Strasbourg one must go over London or Paris. Of late we have endeavoured to get connections through Amsterdam which is possibly the most efficient airport in the Community though perhaps this is a little more costly. It has taken up to sixteen hours to get from Dublin to Strasbourg although the flying time is less than three hours.

We recognise that security is essential and we feel happier when it is rigorously carried out. Nevertheless, there should be some element of refinement in it. I should like to know if the Minister has a figure for the percentage of the increased cost in fares represented by the security measures that have been adopted over the past few years.

In regard to section 6 of the Bill I should like to see even more severe penalties imposed. Taking into account remissions for one reason or another the period that a prisoner sentenced for life serves is sometimes as short as three-and-a-half years. This would appear to be a rather light sentence in a case where the lives of hundreds of people have been endangered. Regard should be had not only to the number of lives lost but to the hardship involved for relatives and families of victims. More severe penalties should be written into the Bill as a deterrent. We may expect greater utilisation of air travel, and people who must get from one place to another as quickly as possible in the interests of economy and the pursuit of their business are entitled to security. The Minister should impose penalties to the extent that they will be a real deterrent even if they might appear to be draconian. There is no point in providing penalties if people who inflict suffering, hardship and heartbreak can get away with a couple of years in prison.

I strongly support the Bill. It is most desirable. I am glad that our country is part and parcel of this convention. I hope that the enactment of the Bill will mean that there will be an improvement in the facilities here and increased safety and greater ease for commuters.

I should like to support the Bill giving effect to the Montreal Convention. Like my colleague Deputy McDonald, my involvement in the European Parliament gives me an acute awareness of the necessity for safety in the air, whether that is in reference to anti-hijacking measures or air traffic control.

My primary purpose in speaking on this Bill was to refer to Eurocontrol. I appreciate that you, a Cheann Comhairle, have ruled against a discussion on Eurocontrol but I should like briefly to bring to the attention of the Minister and the House a motion that was passed by the European Parliament on 13th May. The motion urged the Council of Ministers of the EEC to consider any specific proposals concerning the future role of Eurocontrol in the context of the Commission's communication to the Council on the development of a common transport policy. The members of the European Parliament expressed grave and great concern at the attitude of certain member States, including Ireland, that Eurocontrol should be phased out. This causes me great disquiet also, especially having heard the Minister's rather ambiguous intervention a while ago. I should like to ask the Minister what is his attitude in relation to the future of Eurocontrol. I understand that in recent months the future of Eurocontrol has been under serious discussion. Two lines of thought prevail. The first is that Eurocontrol should develop and be totally responsible for the upper airspace traffic control. The second school of thought holds the view that Eurocontrol should be reduced merely to a co-ordinating body and that trade traffic control should be handled by national authorities.

Bureaucrats in certain member States are anxious not to lose control of the upper airspace. It would be a tragedy if Eurocontrol disappeared, not merely for Ireland but for the development of the common transport policy. We would incur a substantial net loss and Shannon Airport would suffer redundancies. I understand Shannon Airport operations track air traffic 200 miles out into the Atlantic and the information is fed to Prestwick. In fact, this tracking operation could be done from Prestwick itself and this would eliminate the need for Shannon Airport.

If the second school of thought prevailed and if Eurocontrol were brought back under the mantle of national governments Shannon could become superfluous and Prestwick could take over. Therefore, the Minister should not rock the boat. If Eurocontrol were brought under the mantle of national governments Shannon Airport would be outpaced by its counterparts in Britain. Prestwick and other airports would outpace us in the technological race and the result would be that Eurocontrol activities at Shannon Airport would be superfluous. I should like a clear statement from the Minister on his and the Government's attitude in regard to the future of Eurocontrol.

I should like to thank the House for the reception given to this Bill. As a number of speakers have pointed out, the necessity to deal with people who hijack an aircraft or who commit offences on board an aircraft has become an enormous problem for civil aviation authorities throughout the world. It is regrettable that a fast, convenient and relatively cheap mode of transport has caused such inconvenience to travellers in the last few years. As Deputies Herbert and McDonald mentioned, it is necessary to have conventions such as the Tokyo, Montreal and The Hague Conventions to deal with hijackers. I realise the inconvenience caused to passengers as a result of the extra time now involved for passengers but the alternative would be much worse. It is quite unthinkable that because of a lack of tight control someone bent on hijacking an aircraft or committing an offence is allowed on board, perhaps to wreck the plane and plunge 400 innocent people to their deaths in a jumbo jet. Any amount of inconvenience travellers may have to suffer on the ground is preferable to that.

It is regrettable and is a reflection on the way the world has drifted in the last ten years that a convention such as the Montreal Convention has been necessary. It may be that this present legislation may be found wanting and we may have to introduce another convention and new legislation at a future date to deal with any loopholes that may be found. I realise that Deputies on both sides of the House are conscious of the necessity to deal with this problem as effectively as possible.

Deputy R. P. Burke asked about a man under the influence of drink who may be more of a nuisance on an aircraft. He wondered if that man would be removed by the commander of the aircraft and if the latter would be liable for a fine of £100 if he did not report the matter. This legislation deals only with acts of violence. If a passenger who was under the influence of alcohol committed an act of violence and was removed by the commander the latter would be bound to report the fact to the gardaí and would cover himself in that way. However, if he refused to take on board a man who was drunk he would not be bound to report that and, consequently, he would not be bound under the legislation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, Deputy Kelly, referred to the rules of evidence. The ordinary rules of court evidence apply in this regard. Arrest by the Garda Síochána is incorporated in all laws and, therefore, it applies in this case. The question of giving further powers to security people at airports is being considered by the Civil Aviation Security Committee set up by me. The committee are representative of Aerlínte who are responsible for security, Aer Lingus, the Airline Pilots' Association and the various Departments concerned, including my own Department. They may be given some further powers in this regard but the House will appreciate that the Government should be slow to give powers of arrest to people outside the ordinary security forces. One would not like to see this extended too far. There will also be the question of training in the law and the people concerned will have to get virtually the same training as members of the Garda Síochána.

Deputy McDonald referred to the check carried out three times on a flight to the Continent and he said the journey took 13 hours although the actual flying time was only two-and-a-half hours. We would prefer to avoid this but in the interest of security it is necessary. Even at the risk of inconvenience to passengers we must always ensure that safety is of paramount importance. Deputy Kelly spoke about an internal flight in Bulgaria where the person who attempted to hijack the plane and to command it sought refuge in this country. Under this legislation he could be charged in our courts because, for the purpose of this law, that would be considered within the jurisdiction of Irish law. There is also a provision in the legislation for those countries with whom we have extradition arrangements that should a country wish to charge a person in their own jurisdiction there is power to have such a person extradited and charged under the ordinary domestic law of his own country, if that be so desired.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share