Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Nov 1983

Vol. 346 No. 1

Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Bill, 1983: Second Stage

Minister of State at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Donnellan)

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

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for implementation by Ireland of the protocol amending the international convention relating to co-operation for the safety of air navigation, commonly known as the "Eurocontrol Convention", together with the multilateral agreement on route charges. The amending protocol and the multilateral agreement on route charges as well as the Final Act of the diplomatic conference on the protocol were signed, subject to ratification, on behalf of Ireland in Brussels on 12 February, 1981.

The Eurocontrol International Convention relating to co-operation for the safety of air navigation was signed on 13 December 1960. The convention was brought into effect in Ireland by the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Act, 1963.

The main reason for the establishment of the Eurocontrol Organisation was to maintain, in co-operation with other States concerned, the safe, orderly and efficient flow of aircraft particularly the newer jet aircraft which fly not only at very great speeds but also at very great altitudes. Practical experience had shown that it is only through common action by the states concerned that the economic utilisation of their upper airspace could be achieved.

Owing to the high speeds of jet aircraft flying above 20,000 feet, other modern aids are required, in addition to the crew maintaining visual watch from the aircraft, to avoid collisions. As a result air traffic must be controlled from the ground. Jet aircraft fly quickly from an area under one control centre to another and from one national boundary to another, sometimes in a matter of minutes, and this necessitates quick transfers from one control centre to another.

In addition to the increases in the numbers and speed of aircraft, there had been a significant growth in the volume of complexity of radio and electronic equipment designed to extend the reliability and use of aircraft in varying weather and other flying conditions. The provision of these aids assisted the rationalisation of demands on available radio frequencies, and other communication media.

The problems arising from the use of jet aircraft were compounded in the airspace over the Western European countries because of the high density of air traffic and this led to the establishment of Eurocontrol in December 1960.

The Eurocontrol Organisation initially consisted of six members — Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom. Ireland became the seventh member in January 1965. On ratification of the amending protocol, Portugal will become the eighth member state of Eurocontrol. Technical or co-operation agreements have been concluded with a number of non-member states including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Austria, Canada and the United States Federal Aviation Administration. The organisation have their headquarters in Brussels. They employ about 1,100 staff of which about 1 per cent are Irish.

Eurocontrol is composed of two bodies: the Permanent Commission, which is a deliberative body, and the Air Traffic Services Agency, an executive body. The commission have a dual role, firstly to formulate common policies on certain matters relating to air traffic control, and secondly, to exercise the power of general supervision of the agency's activities.

The Eurocontrol Convention defines in Article 6, the aims and functions of the Permanent Commission as follows:

The aims of the commission shall be to promote the adoption of measures and the installation and operation of facilities designed to:

— ensure the safety of air navigation;

— ensure an orderly and rapid flow of air traffic,

within defined airspace under the sovereignty of the contracting parties or in respect of which the air traffic services have been entrusted to those parties under international agreements.

For this purpose the commission shall be responsible for:

(a) the study, on the basis of the Standards and Recommended Practices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, of the standardisation of the operation of the services responsible for ensuring the safety and regulation of air traffic:

(b) the promotion of a common policy to be followed in respect of radio aids, telecommunications and corresponding airborne equipment, designed to ensure the safety of aircraft;

(c) the promotion and co-ordination of studies relating to air navigation services and installations in order to take account of technical developments, and, if necessary, the study of amendments to the Regional Air Navigation Plans to be submitted to the International Civil Aviation Organisation;

(d) the determination of the configuration of the airspace in respect of which air traffic services are entrusted to the agency;

(e) the determination of the policy to be followed by the agency in respect of remuneration for services rendered to users, and, where applicable, the approval of the tariffs and conditions of application of charges established by the agency;

(f) the study of measures designed to facilitate the financing of investments required for the functioning of the agency or more generally of the services of the contracting parties which participate in the work of ensuring the safety of air navigation;

(g) the exercise of the power of general supervision of the activities of the agency.

The Permanent Commission acts through recommendations, decisions, directives and conclusions on the following basis:

(i) Recommendations to member states relate to the standardisation of national regulations governing air traffic, or the promotion of a common policy in respect of radio aids, telecommunications and airborne equipment. Recommendations are formulated by majority vote.

(ii) Decisions concern important matters of general policy such as the determination of the configuration of the upper airspace in respect of which the air traffic services are entrusted to the agency. Decisions are taken by the commission acting unanimously, and are binding on the member states.

(iii) Directives issued to the agency cover various fields, in particular the financing of investments.

(iv) Conclusions are formulated in respect of deliberations concerning the powers of general supervision of the agency and the reference of appeals to the arbitration tribunal.

The voting system adopted for directives and conclusions is notable for the balance it achieves among the member states. On the one hand, it was necessary to give greater weight to states making the heaviest financial contributions and this was done by taking the objective economic criterion of the gross national produce (GNP), but on the other hand, the interests of states having a low GNP weighting factor had to be safeguarded. For these reasons, it was stipulated that an absolute majority of weighted votes would be valid only if the proposal were accepted by more than half the member states.

To sum up, the commission's directives to the agency and their acts in the exercise of their power of general supervision are valid only if they satisfy the following two conditions: an absolute majority of weighted votes and an absolute majority of the member states.

A unanimous vote is sometimes required for certain matters covered by specific provisions of the convention or the statute of the agency.

Member states are generally represented on the commission by the Ministers responsible for civil aviation. The office of the President of the Permanent Commission is assumed by the representatives of the member states in turn for a period of one year. The Irish Minister has held office of President of the Permanent Commission for two periods, that is from July 1969 to June 1970 and from July 1976 to June 1977. The present Minister for Transport, Deputy Jim Mitchell, has been appointed as president for the year beginning 1 January 1984.

The role of the agency is to provide air traffic services in the airspace defined by the Commission — upper airspace, generally the airspace above 20,000 feet — and to install facilities required to ensure efficient and smooth operation of such services. To this end, the agency cooperate closely with the national authorities in order to satisfy as efficiently and economically as possible the needs of the air traffic under their control. The agency are administered by a committee of management and a director general.

The committee of management are composed of high-ranking officials of the member states with responsibility for air navigation. Each state has two representatives, only one of whom has the right to vote.

The committee, inter alia, take decisions on the technical organisation of the agency, prepare the budgetary estimates for each financial year, draw up the investment and operating programmes, the service regulations and the contract regulations and submit an annual report to the commission on the activities and financial position of the organisation.

The director general is at the head of all the agency's services and, in conjunction with the committee of management, is responsible for the general administration of the agency. The director general represents the organisation in legal proceedings and for all civil purposes. Within certain limits specified in the agency's regulations, he may appoint officials and terminate their services, contract loans and enter into agreements. He keeps the committee informed of all measures taken in the exercise of the powers conferred on him.

The present Director General, Mr. Horst Flentje of the Federal Republic of Germany, took up his appointment on 1 July 1983 for a five-year period. He had previously been the director in charge of engineering activities.

Notice taken than 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Donnellan

Eurocontrol thus has manifold functions. The organisation bear responsibility for the development of common operational methods and procedures and for the co-ordination of control systems for the upper airspace of the various parties to the convention. They have to establish and implement plans for the organisation of air traffic services in the upper airspace of the member states. Their responsibilities further extend to framing and carrying out a programme of trials and simulations and co-ordinating this programme with similar activities carried out by the member states, and to determining whether it is feasible and desirable to standardise and centralise the purchase of equipment required by more than one state. In addition, Eurocontrol co-ordinate the proposals submitted on behalf of the member states to the International Civil Aviation Organisation in respect of Eurocontrol's activities, and provide basic and advance training for air traffic services staff both operational and technical.

The tasks which the Permanent Commission have assigned to Eurocontrol have corollaries in areas such as operational research, statistics, planning in respect of the automation of control centres and in air traffic control procedures, the definition and production of the relevant software, the study and technical assessment of navigation systems, research into the use of a common computer language and studies on the use of satellites for air traffic purposes. Eurocontrol are also responsible for the operation of the route charges system.

The preparation of these programmes requires the establishment of inter-governmental working groups whose role is to formulate standpoints common to the national administrations and the organisation.

In Ireland's case, major new operational facilities were communally financed through Eurocontrol's budget and the Department of Transport provide the staff to operate and maintain these facilities under a bilateral agreement with Eurocontrol. Certain other member states — the UK, France and the Netherlands — also operate services in their respective jurisdictions on behalf of Eurocontrol through bilateral agreements.

The facilities that were provided in Ireland under the Eurocontrol financing system were the Shannon Upper Airspace Control Centre, the Mount Gabriel, County Cork, and Woodcock Hill, County Clare, secondary surveillance radar stations. We were obliged to provide these facilities by virtue of our membership of the International Civil Aviation Organisation

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. Donnellan

At this point I wish to provide background information on the en-route charges system. Since 1971 Ireland has participated in an international scheme under the aegis of Eurocontrol to collect charges from airlines for the use by them of Irish en-route air navigation services provided by us. The Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Act, 1971, provided for the payment of a single charge by aircraft operators for en-route air navigation facilities, other than aerodromes navigation services. The charges are made payable by the airlines in US dollars to Eurocontrol, and by virtue of a bilateral agreement Eurocontrol refund to this country the amount of the charges collected in respect of the services made available in Irish airspace, less the cost of collection. Similar agreements exist with the other states in the route charges system which are the seven member states of Eurocontrol plus Austria, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland.

I should explain the situation pertaining to the introduction of these route charges. The provision of air navigation services to aircraft on the en-route phase of flight was for a long time regarded as a sovereign activity falling within the exclusive competence of individual States, which were bound to ensure the safety of air traffic over their territory and in airspace entrusted to them by international agreement. Consequently, services were provided to the airlines free of charge, which meant at the taxpayers' expense.

This situation persisted for two decades after the Second World War. However, air traffic control was to an increasing extent providing an economic service to airlines operators by enabling them to conduct their flights under optimum conditions from the angle of regularity, safety and efficiency. It was, therefore, becoming increasingly justified to charge airlines for the service supplied to them direct, and governments envisaged a change of policy accordingly.

In 1958 an initial conference convened by the International Civil Aviation Organisation was devoted almost exclusively to airport charges, only touching on the problem of en-route charges. However, some states, particularly the developing countries were beginning to levy route charges. In March 1967, ICAO organised a conference at its headquarters in Montreal to study, in particular, the problem of financing en-route air navigation facilities and services. After this conference, the ICAO Council issued recommendations in anticipation of the introduction of route charges systems and it was these recommendations which were to guide the Eurocontrol member states. Furthermore, in 1969, a panel of experts from ICAO and from Eurocontrol member states carried out an economic study of the problems connected with the introduction of route charges. In the meantime, the Eurocontrol member states had decided in 16 November 1966 to set up an inter-governmental working group, assisted by Eurocontrol experts, to study the conditions under which a common route charges system could be introduced with a view to covering part of the costs incurred by the member states and Eurocontrol in implementing en route air navigation facilities and services in their airspaces.

The group completed this task in 1969 and set up several specialised sub-groups, namely, a financial sub-group, to consider the financial problems involved in the establishment of a route facility charging system and in particular the basis of assessment of the charges; a technical sub-group, entrusted with the task of finding solutions to the technical problems involved in the collection and transmission of basic data for the calculation of charges; a simulation exercises sub-group, to process the results of simulation carried out by Eurocontrol on 12 different possible ways of assessing the route charges; and — at a subsequent date — a legal sub-group, for the purpose of defining the legal basis of the charges system to be applied in the airspace of various states.

On 3 July 1969, the Eurocontrol Permanent Commission adopted the basic principles of a harmonised regional en-route facility charging system involving a single overall charge for flights in upper and lower airspace, and directed the agency and the inter-governmental working group to prepare for the introduction of the system. Three months later the Permanent Commission decided to implement the common route charges system and to set up a central route charges office administered by the organisation.

The Eurocontrol member states signed on 8 September 1970 a multilateral agreement whereby they undertook to introduce the common system and, under bilateral agreements, entrusted Eurocontrol with the collection on their behalf of route charges incurred in the airspace falling within their competence. The individual member states drafted and published national regulations authorising the collection of route charges. They approved the tariffs and conditions of application of the charges, which were published by the agency and incorporated into the national regulations.

In line with the International Civil Aviation Organisation recommendations advocating implementation of the charging system on a regional scale, the Eurocontrol member states invited the other states of the Europe-Mediterranean region to participate in the charging system and to entrust Eurocontrol with the collection of the charges. The invitation was accepted in 1971 by Switzerland, Austria, Spain and Portugal. The system is accordingly, applied by 11 states. It remains open to any other state wishing to participate.

The system was put into operation on 1 November 1971. The cost recovery rate for the initial two-year period was 15 per cent of historic costs. It was agreed that the rate would be raised progressively to reach 100 per cent, that is, total cost recovery, in ten years without any abrupt shift of the cost burden onto operators. Since 1982 the recovery rate is 100 per cent of current costs.

At this stage I would like to explain how the amending protocol came about, The present Eurocontrol Convention which was signed in 1960 was ratified in 1963 for 20 years. During the mid seventies the position of Eurocontrol after 1983 was taken up by the Permanent Commission.

As I have already stated, certain member states had continued to provide air traffic control services in their upper airspaces on behalf of Eurocontrol while others such as Belgium, Luxembourg and part of Germany had handed over this function to Eurocontrol.

Additionally, some new facilities were financed directly through the Eurocontrol budget while other facilities were first financed through national budgets and the costs were recovered from Eurocontrol over a number of years — eight years in the case of equipment, 20 in the case of buildings. The upper-lower airspace boundary was becoming increasingly difficult to justify in the context of financing new services where these services had functions in both airspaces.

The following subsequent events found agreement among the member states to ensure the continuation of Eurocontrol after 1983. At its 43rd session in November 1974 the Permanent Commission of Eurocontrol requested its alternates to continue with the study undertaken on the future activities of Eurocontrol; agreed that the study should examine the financial, administrative, technical and operational consequences of the various alternatives envisaged; and requested its alternates to submit a final report at a commission session to be held in June 1975 at the latest. This decision followed on one taken at the preceding session that now would be an appropriate time for the governments of the member states to define the lines along which the organisation's activities might proceed for the 1980's and beyond.

In a letter dated 15 October 1975 the then President of the Commission — Mr. Westerterp of the Netherlands — reported that, as decided by the commission at its session on 15 May 1975, he had approached the governments of the member states in order to assess the political implication of alternatives for the future organisation of Eurocontrol in the current European context. In pursuance of this decision he had consulted the competent Ministers and Secretaries of State of the member states on their governments' viewpoints concerning the future of Eurocontrol. In executing this task he had based himself expressly on the assumption that continued and, where possible, increased co-operation within the framework of Eurocontrol would be in the interests of both the European policy of the member states and future air traffic safety requirements. Nevertheless, he adopted as far as possible a practical approach to this matter since the interests referred to above were, in his opinion, best served by the certainty of continued co-operation in a wide field, making allowance if necessary for views which might diverge on some points. This approach offered the best possible chance of avoiding further theoretical discussion of alternatives whose implementation would involve innumerable uncertainties.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Donnellan

His aim was to:

—establish the areas of maximum agreement among the member states regarding Eurocontrol's tasks beyond 1983;

—explore possible ways of further strengthening Eurocontrol and of entrusting it with fresh tasks;

—avoid, with respect to the points on which the member states were not unanimous, the risk of any breakdown, while at the same time keeping the way open for co-operation and integration on these points.

He had started out from the assumption that Eurocontrol would continue to function up to 1983 in pursuance of the provision of the present convention.

He found a large measure of agreement on this approach.

He summed up this agreement in the following ten principles:

(i) It is the member states' view that Eurocontrol must continue to exist beyond 1983 and that the basis of a new convention should be established well in advance of that time. They believe that in the longer term also, in the context of increasing European co-operation, it must be continuously assessed whether certain air traffic control tasks, including the execution of control, could not be performed more efficiently and, in particular, more economically, on a joint basis.

(ii) The member states are of the opinion that Eurocontrol's central tasks should be maintained and, if necessary, extended. This means that the headquarters in Brussels, the experimental centre at Bretigny, the institute at Luxembourg and the route charges office in Brussels should continue to function within the framework of Eurocontrol under the joint responsibility of new member states.

(iii) The member states wish to see, within the framework of Eurocontrol, closer co-ordination of air traffic control policies and greater emphasis on both joint planning and the cost-effectiveness of air traffic control systems, even where the organisation does not perform operational tasks itself. To this end the new convention, which is to enter into force in 1983, must make provision for the necessary procedures to be followed.

(iv) The member states wish a thorough study to be made to determine what new requirements calling for joint action may arise in the field of air navigation safety in Europe and to what extent Eurocontrol might contribute towards these.

(v) The member states are convinced that considerable simplification of Eurocontrol's financial machinery in the form in which this has developed from application of the present convention, is both necessary and feasible.

(vi) The member states are agreed that Eurocontrol must be organised and managed with a high degree of efficiency in order to justify the route charges levied on the users. They are to consider further what possible measures might be taken in that connection.

(vii) The member states are in agreement that full membership of Eurocontrol does not necessarily entail the transfer of control of all or part of a state's airspace.

(viii) The states which have already entrusted Eurocontrol's Maastrict Centre with air traffic control responsibilities wish this centre to be retained. Consultations are accordingly to take place between all the states concerned regarding the retention and further development of this centre beyond 1983 for the benefit of the Benelux States and the Federal Republic of Germany.

(ix) Transfer of air traffic control to Eurocontrol by member states will depend on considerations of a political, operational, technical, economic and social nature and must be compatible with the overall aim of ensuring on a permanent basis, the safest and most efficient air traffic control possible in the member states' airspace.

(x) The member states consider that the new convention to enter into force in 1983 should be framed in such a way as to foster the accession of new member states.

These ten principles were accepted by the Commission and formed the basis for further work in preparation for the post-1983 era and from which the amended Protocol has emerged.

Regarding the multilateral agreement relating to the collection of route charges it was agreed that:

1. the multilateral agreement, which is co-terminous with the present convention, should be extended in time with suitable modifications to become co-terminous with the "new convention";

2. the multilateral agreement should be annexed to the "new convention" and the latter should contain an article empowering Eurocontrol to continue to operate the central route charges office for the benefit of the signatories of the multilateral agreement;

3. all member states of Eurocontrol should be required to be signatories of the multilateral agreement also;

4. States not wishing to become members of Eurocontrol could nevertheless become signatories of the multilateral agreement alone — that is, in conformity with existing arrangements; and

5. it might be necessary to give new signatories to the multilateral agreement a period of grace — for example, five years — to bring their cost recovery levels up to any agreed levels.

36. The principal changes in the role and activities of Eurocontrol proposed in the amending protocol are as follows:—

(a) The organisation's responsibilities for the planning of air traffic services will be extended to the whole airspace, not just the upper airspace — above 20-25,000 feet — as at present. The primary task of Eurocontrol will thus become the development of the air traffic control system in the member states according to a common basic concept which takes account of requirements and in such a way that the national plans are effectively co-ordinated in the medium and long term.

(b) There will no longer be any obligation on the part of member states to transfer responsibilities of air traffic services to the organisation. This has no direct implication for Ireland as we had not handed over executive functions under the old convention.

(c) The current programme for the communal financing of capital expenditure on operational facilities in the member states will be discontinued. It is considered that the implementation of this communal finance system has proved to be extremely complex and the effort devoted to it has hampered concentration on the organisation's real role in the development of air traffic services.

(d) Eurocontrol will play a key role in the development and operation of a European system of air traffic flow management, in collaboration with the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

(e). The Eurocontrol route charges system will continue on its present lines. The new Multilateral Agreement on Route Charges will be signed by the seven member states and the four non-member states now associated with the system — Austria, Portugal, Switzerland and Spain.

Mr. Wilson

Has the Minister a date for that?

Mr. Donnellan

Not at the moment. We shall have that information later. One of the major differences between the present and the amended convention is that all air traffic control facilities and services will be national instead of communal. At the transition date each member state will take over ownership of direct investments, for example upper airspace control centres and secondary surveillance radar stations, sited on their territories. It was agreed that the host country would "buy in" these facilites at their unamortised value at the transition date and that the fund thus created would be distributed among all member states in GNP proportions. However, there was sympathetic recognition on the part of all other member states of the need for special treatment for Ireland because of our important location for trans-Atlantic civil aviation and as the Eurocontrol facilities in Ireland are more elaborate than those required for Ireland's own needs. The cost of installing the facilities in Ireland was £9 million.

In our case it was agreed that Shannon Upper Airspace Control Centre, together with the Mount Gabriel, County Cork and Woodcock Hill, County Clare, Secondary Surveillance Radar Stations would become the property of Ireland on the entry into force of the amending protocol. As these facilities were financed by the seven member states, transitional financial arrangements have been agreed to the effect that Ireland's route charges receipts will be reduced over a period of four years after 1984 in respect of the amortisation element only of the capital cost of these facilities up to a maximum of £2.5 million.

During their 24 years of existence, Eurocontrol have established an experimental centre at Bretigny near Paris which undertakes studies, tests and simulations on behalf of Eurocontrol to improve efficiency of ATC, and the Institute of Air Navigation in Luxembourg which undertakes the training of air traffic controllers and assistant controllers and technical personnel employed in connection with data handling, information, analysis, programming and maintenance. Air Traffic control centres and secondary survillance radar stations have been set up at Shannon, Maastricht in Holland and Karlsruhe in Germany. The Maastricht Air Traffic Control Centre which at present controls the upper airspace of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Hanover area of Northern Germany will in the next few years assume control of total air traffic control above flight level 10,000 feet in the states of Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Northern Germany. Germany will take over ownership of the Karlsruhe centre.

The amending protocol will enable Eurocontrol to expand and strengthen its role in the development and operation of a co-ordinated European air traffic control system. While Ireland may be one of the smaller member states of the organisation, we have always been conscious that because of our geographical location we can contribute to the development of the organisation and will continue to play a significant role in all matters relating to the organisation's future aims.

Under the amending protocol, various powers which were vested in Eurocontrol revert to national control. In our case these powers related to the provision of land by the Minister for the organisation, the obligations for aircraft operating in the upper airspace of member states to comply with authorisations to proceed issued by Eurocontrol and penalties for non-compliance with an authorisation to proceed issued by that organisation. The powers also referred to the acquisition of land and of water rights by the Minister at the request of the organisation.

This Bill effectively removes the supranational authority vested in Eurocontrol by virtue of the 1960 Convention and the Act of 1963. As I have stated already, this supranational authority was never given full effect in Ireland and the facilities provided and owned by Eurocontrol were operated by the Minister under bilateral agreement. Provision is also made in this Bill to give effect to Articles 18 and 23 of the protocol which relate to the inviolability of persons and documents in the course of their duties connected with Eurocontrol and to Article 227 which makes special provisions in relation to the position of the director general of the agency.

Article 36 of the protocol provides that states which accede to the convention shall also become parties to the Multilateral Agreement on Route Charges. This agreement continues in force a system —introduced in a multilateral agreement of 1971 — under which Eurocontrol act as agent in the collection of route charges for navigational aids.

The new multilateral agreement introduces provisions stating that a legal decision taken in a contracting state against a user of the system who has defaulted in the payment of route charges shall be recognisable and enforceable in other contracting states.

Provision is made in the Bill to amend the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Act, 1971 so as to implement Articles 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 which contain the provisions on recognition and enforcement.

The opportunity is also being taken to update the level of penalties provided for in the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol Act 1963, and the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Act, 1971. The remaining amendments are editorial in nature.

I strongly recommend this Bill to the Dáil.

Mr. Wilson

This House should welcome any Bill which comes before it the prime objective of which is co-operation between countries into which and out of which there are air services to improve the safety of air navigation. That is the prime objective of this Bill, as it was of the convention and also of the amending protocol and of the amendment to the amending protocol which we have had already. The objective is a worthy one and it is no harm to refer in passing to our national airline which has a splendid record in looking after their passengers.

Admittedly, accidents are not always 100 per cent avoidable by care and skill, but it is true to say that our national airline have been exceptionally good in this regard. We pride ourselves on a respect for human life and human values more than for the purely commercial. Certain things happen here which make us doubt that, but taken all in all, we could maintain that position. Aer Lingus have maintained the most rigorous standards with regard to safety in air navigation. It is no surprise, then, to learn that when international co-operation became inevitable for reasons outlined by the Minister and when six countries — Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, West Germany and the United Kingdom — came together in 1960 to put together this convention, not too long afterwards Ireland was the seventh member and has maintained that membership.

There is one puzzling thing from the administrative point of view which I would like to mention. Why is there this separate organisation for air navigation safety? Ireland could not have joined in 1965 if it was a European economic grouping and organisation because Ireland did not join the EEC until 1973, the same year as Britain joined. The founder member countries of Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg and West Germany could have elaborated their policy within an EEC context. We are continually told that the only policy which the EEC have succeeded in making a Community policy is the agricultural one. That is now under heavy strain. The reason I mention this is because there is a proliferation of international organisations and it seems to me that the member countries could apply themselves to the principle of nationalisation in this regard. As the Minister outlined in his speech, there are far more countries involved now than originally and some of the countries mentioned are not members of the EEC.

As well as the Council of Ministers of the EEC there is a European conference of Ministers of Transport, to which the USA and Japan are loosely connected. The European Community of Ministers of Transport has its own organisation. We have in this particular grouping of Eurocontrol another grouping. Each of those has its own president, its commission, agencies, all layers of a bureaucracy. It would be worth our Ministers while having a look at the possibility of bringing this under either ECMT or under the EEC Council of Ministers. Whoever the Irish Minister for Transport may be on 1 January 1984 he will be the incoming President.

Mr. Donnellon

The Deputy need have no doubt about that.

Mr. Wilson

De dicho al hecho hay mucho trecho. There are so many layers of bureaucracy that it would not be any harm to stand back from them, have a look at them and see if there could be simplification and an elimination of some of them.

The multilateral agreement of 12 February 1981, includes Germany, Austria, which is a member of the ECMT but not a member of the EEC, Spain, which is a candidate for membership of the EEC, Belgium, France, the UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland. Switzerland is another outsider, but, as far as I remember, Switzerland is a member of the European Conference of the Ministers of Transport although she does not belong to the EEC and is not a full member of Eurocontrol.

There is a point which I would like to make and I am sorry Deputy Kelly is not here to hear me. In the Bill there are a number of technical terms used and Deputy Kelly is very keen that legal technical terms should be simplified. I see that the word "determination" is used in the Bill and it is defined as a decision. If "determination" is a decision by definition then, if I may quote Deputy John Kelly, why not call it "a decision" and leave out the word "determination"? In the 1963 Act there are a number of safeguards mentioned in section 3. I am puzzled about section 2 of this Bill which states:

Section 3 of the Act of 1963 is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following subsections:

(7) Persons employed by the Organisation shall enjoy inviolability for all their official papers and documents.

I would like the Minister to tease out the reason for that. I would like him to give an exact explanation why that is so. The section continues:

(8) The Director-General of the Agency shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction in respect of acts, other than acts which would constitute a road traffic offence or acts whereby damage is caused by a motor vehicle belonging to, or driven by him, but including words spoken or written.

I would like the Minister to tease out the reason for that very elaborate safeguard written into the Bill. The last part of the section states:

(9) Representatives of Member States of the Organisation shall, whilst exercising their functions, and in the course of any journey to or from a meeting of the Organisation, enjoy inviolability for their official papers and documents.

This introduces a cloak and dagger element. On Committee Stage we will deal with this in more detail.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can deal with that in detail on Committee Stage. A passing reference is all right now.

Mr. Wilson

I agree with that. I felt it was appropriate to make a few general remarks which struck me on reading the Bill. One thing which would have had a very happy effect on a notorious incident in the Far East recently is in relation to section 8 of the 1963 Act which states:

Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for the person to prove that the contravention of section 7 of this Act in respect of which he is charged was due to stress of weather or other unavoidable cause or that the contravention took place without his knowledge or without his actual default or privity.

I am making the general point that the rule of law is important and that civilised canons for the application of that law would have avoided the incident in Korea when the Korean airliner was shot down without having any chance to explain why it was off course. If it were guilty it could have been brought into land and the people responsible could have been charged. Section 8 (2) of the 1963 Act, the Principal Act being amended by this one, would have overcome that difficulty. Section 11 about the retention of aircraft applies in that way also.

On reading up some of the background to this Bill — reading Statutory Instrument No. 82 of 1983, dated 25 March 1983 — I was rather shocked with regard to charges. Admittedly the charges which the Minister was talking about were "en route" charges which are somewhat different. I wonder if the Minister would explain in his reply some of the anomalies in these charges and let me know if there are any such anomalies in the charges applicable to the "en route" business he mentioned and explained in some detail in the course of his remarks. I might refer to the charges imposed at Dublin and Shannon airports. For example, when aircraft depart from zone two — that is between 30 degrees west and 110 degrees west and 28 degrees north and 55 degrees north latitude, the Belfast charge is $176, the Dublin charge $185 and the Shannon charge $132. The Glasgow charge is $267 and the London charge $470. Why the service in, say, Glasgow should be able to earn so much more than the one in Belfast, Dublin or Shannon I do not know. The charges in respect of zone three, that is 110 degrees west and between 28 degrees north and 55 degrees north latitude are London $683 and Shannon $127.64. I know there is greater service of aircraft at London, more connections, it being a bigger airport and so on, but the difference seems to me to be very wide indeed. I know that Shannon has experienced some difficulties with regard to clientele and that Aeroflot has to some extent restored finances there. But there is room there also for making extra profit on the basis of a charge of $683 at London and $127 at Shannon. In respect of zone four west of 30 degrees west and between the Equator and 28 degrees north, again the charge at London is $421 and at Shannon $142; Madeira and Rabat only being cheaper than Shannon. I presume it is advantageous to have these charges denominated in dollars. Unlike the purchase of oil it would be to our advantage to be paid for these services in dollars. I should like to know whether what we are recouped by Eurocontrol is done in dollars, whether it is earned in dollars and recouped to us in dollars, in Irish punts, or in what currency. The figures given by the Minister in the course of his remarks were very impressive. I would like to probe the earnings a little. They seem to be very good. I should like to know a little more of their background.

With regard to the provision for air navigation I might refer in passing to the Book of Estimates for this year and indicate to the House that in 1980 the provision for equipment for the Air Navigation Services Office was £834,000. In 1981 it was £1,265,000, in 1982 the provisional outturn was £3,458,400 and the estimate for 1983 is £3,100,000. Perhaps the Minister would comment on those. For example, is the expenditure on these navigational electronic aids adequate? Also are the people operating the system — and I know there was some trouble out there when I was Minister — satisfied with the capital investment in electronic aids? Are Eurocontrol satisfied that what we are providing — admittedly I am talking about airport facilities — is adequate for the job in hand?

In replying perhaps the Minister would also let us know about Mount Gabriel. There was a problem there. Has the facility there been restored to its full potential? In view of what the Minister said in the course of his remarks it is highly relevant that Shannon, Mount Gabriel and the other station in County Clare are being given back fully to the Irish Government and that the amount of money to be refunded from Eurocontrol, for four years, would be less than the full amount until about £2.5 million had been paid for these facilities despite the fact that they cost a great deal more. I congratulate the Minister and his officers for having achieved this in negotiation with the respective states. I know that the Minister's words indicated that Ireland had been regarded as a special case and that consequently we got off rather lightly in this regard. I do not believe that for one moment. There is not any sentiment with regard to such matters at all in Europe. Therefore I am convinced this was achieved only by hard work on the part of the Minister, his Department and officials and I congratulate them thereon. There is not any sentiment in Europe when it comes to hard cash, and this constituted a considerable achievement.

I should like to deviate my comments to the background of the suggestion I made, that the Department of Transport — for which I have very high regard — should examine the scene across the board of a Council of Ministers of Transport, a European Conference of Ministers of Transport and now Eurocontrol, different structures. I cannot see how they could not be rationalised to eliminate some of what I might call existing layers of bureaucracy.

Am I right in thinking that we are coming in rather late in the day with this Bill, because a good deal of the Minister's speech was devoted to a new protocol? I interrupted him — and I apologise for doing so — to ask when this new one will be signed. Are we just a little ahead of the posse doing something which refers to a convention and a protocol which will be replaced very shortly?

The Minister went through the workings of the commission and the Air Traffic Services Agency in some detail, each serviced by their own officials. I should like to make a point, which I indicated to the senior officers in the Department of Transport when I was there, that when positions become vacant for directors general in the various international organisations, we should be pitching in there and trying to get our people placed. As many of them have only a five-year period in office, an official from this country who had that experience would be of great advantage to Ireland when he or she returned to work in his or her respective Department in Dublin. I know that there are contra arguments. Some people say we need all the brain power we have to service our own Departments. There is also the danger that when an official spends some time on the Continent, perhaps in receipt of a much higher salary, he or she will not come home. These are risks worth taking because, even if they do decide to leave the Irish service, they are still available at centres of influence and power, are contactable by Irish Ministers and officials and can be very helpful on the international scene.

The voting system has been formulated with considerable sensitivity to the dangers of allowing the GNP to decide everything. In many instances the GNP will prevail but the system of balancing the vote seems to be an admirable one. In a part of this country we had, for a period, votes allocated on the weight of a person's wallet and this does not make for peace in any community, let alone in an international organisation.

The Minister made it clear that there is a fundamental change and that Eurocontrol is only dealing with the upper airspace, 20,000 to 25,000 feet and above, but that in the new protocol altitudes below that would be covered. This will make for easier reorganisation and the point was made that the demarcation between the lower and upper airspace was becoming more difficult to maintain and establish.

The post of director general will probably become vacant in 1988. Perhaps the Minister of State should report to his Minister that he should start grooming somebody for the vacancy now.

Mr. Donnellan

Whom does the Deputy propose?

Mr. Wilson

Ireland's decision to participate on the basis of the bilateral agreement seems to have been best and the change which the Minister foreshadowed in his speech of national rather than supra-national control in this area is welcome. Although the Minister did not say so, I gather that the military air navigation are also involved and, for that reason, Ireland displayed wisdom when they conducted the operations by way of bilateral agreement rather than handing over the control to Eurocontrol originally. If I interpret what the Minister said correctly, all the other countries are going to operate on their own rather than handing over any part of the air navigation control to a supra-national Eurocontrol.

I have already mentioned the Shannon Upper Airspace Control Centres, Mount Gabriel in Cork and Woodcock Hill in County Clare. I said I would come back to Mount Gabriel: if we are buying it back, as the Minister indicated we would, it would be to our advantage if it had been fully rebuilt, restored and fully operational. I know that repairs had not got under way when I left office and if we have to do the work ourselves it will cost the Exchequer a lot of money.

The Minister gave a long, historical disquisition on the development of Eurocontrol and the work that was put into putting it together. It is heartwarming to see the punctilious, careful and hardworking effort that was put into this operation which is basically to make air travel safe. We hear far too much, at home and abroad, of efforts being made to wipe out our civilisation, and the thesis put forward by the Minister this evening will help to restore our faith in the potential of governments and their officials to make travel safer and life easier for everyone.

Mr. Westerterp of the Netherlands who reported to Eurocontrol on the continuation of the present arrangement after the 20-year period was up, deserves our thanks and congratulations. The blueprint, as it were, that he outlined for his own activity is one that could be taken as a headline for other diplomatic activities. First, his aim is to establish the areas of maximum agreement among the member states regarding Eurocontrol's tasks, and then to explore possible ways of strengthening Eurocontrol and of giving that body fresh tasks, but perhaps the last of those aims is the most important, that is, to avoid the risk of any breakdown while at the same time keeping the way open for co-operation and integration on the points on which the member states were not unaminous.

The Minister referred then to the summing up of the agreement in ten principles. He told us that Mr. Westerterp was of the view that Eurocontrol must continue to exist beyond 1983. I expect that the House would be in full agreement with that but I would draw attention to the possibility that Eurocontrol need not necessarily be dismantled but should perhaps be incorporated in one of the other agencies. This other agency could not be the EEC because of the needs of Austria and Switzerland, and while Spain and Portugal have not yet become members, they are at least very strong applicants for EEC membership. In these circumstances the European Conference of Ministers of Transport should be able to take Eurocontrol under their wing. According to Mr. Westerterp, the headquarters in Brussels, the experimental centre at Bretigny, the Institute at Luxembourg and the route charges office in Brussels should continue to function within the framework of Eurocontrol. At times one gets the impression that in some of these recommendations, that one particularly, he is anxious to defend the status quo in the institution. However, I believe there are too many agencies dealing with transport on the European scene and that there is a possibility of simplifying the activity. The fifth principle, as the Minister has told us, is that member states are convinved that considerable simplification of Eurocontrol's financial machinery in the form in which it has developed from application of the present convention is both necessary and feasible. I understand there were difficulties with regard to connection and disbursement and that it was a case of one country passing to Eurocontrol with Eurocontrol passing back to individual members, thereby creating some difficulties. I draw attention particularly to number (vi) which is that:

The member states are agreed that Eurocontrol must be organised and managed with a high degree of efficiency in order to justify the route charges levied on the users....

There is to be further consideration of what possible measures might be taken in that connection. I expect that as a general and first principle the House will accept that, since there are so many layers of administration in respect of transport in Europe but no great progress being made in terms of an overall European transport policy if the customer is paying for a service the maximum efficiency should be achieved.

I have commented already on principle No. (vii) which states that:

The member states are in agreement that full membership of Eurocontrol does not necessarily entail the transfer of control of all or part of a state's airspace.

I emphasise again that this is important in the context of the military side and also to us who have stoutly maintained a neutral position. There is some evidence at least that in various areas that position may be subjected to pressure, gentle or otherwise, with regard to European conventions and so on.

The idea that the multilateral agreement should continue is co-terminous with the present convention. This means that it will have to be given a new lease of life in the context of the new convention. The Minister has told us that it was agreed also that the multilateral agreement should be annexed to the new convention and that the latter should contain an article empowering Eurocontrol to continue to operate the central route charges office for the benefit of the signatories of the multilateral agreement. Again we are left in the dark in that respect, so perhaps the Minister will clarify the position. A large part of his speech refers to the new convention, but as of now I have no information as to when that new convention will be ready for signature. The recommendation is that all member states of Eurocontrol should be required to be signatories of the multilateral agreement also. It is indicated also that the multilateral agreement will be available for signature to states not wishing to become members of Eurocontrol. From reading the multilateral agreement I find that the members who signed on 12 February 1981 were the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Belgium, Spain the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the Swiss Confederation and Ireland. Those are the ones which are not co-terminous with those that formed Eurocontrol, even the extended Eurocontrol. It was agreed also that it might be necessary to give new signatories to the multilateral agreement a period of grace so as to bring their cost recovery levels up to agreed levels. The Minister outlined also the principal changes in the activities and in the role of Eurocontrol as proposed in the amending protocol. There, the reference is to protocol rather than to the new convention. I am a bit confused about that, so perhaps the Minister could clarify the situation for us.

The Minister mentioned that the organisation's responsibilities would cover the whole of airspace above the 20,000-to-25,000 level as well as anything below that. Therefore, we will now have Eurocontrol becoming a developmental agency for the whole air traffic system. In order to have a rational and easily worked-out system, that should be so.

We are told also that there will be no longer any obligation on the part of member states to transfer responsibilities of air traffic services to the organisation. The Minister pointed out that Ireland never did transfer such responsibilities and that, consequently, this does not affect us. However, the point I made still holds, that is, that it is better if the individual states have their own responsibilities.

The current programme for the communal financing of capital expenditure on operational facilities in the member states is to be discontinued. If we had not reached a stage of development, it could be rather serious for us if we had to provide the capital for building these facilities here. We already know that the Minister and his officials have worked out a good deal with regard to Clare, Shannon and Mount Gabriel.

Subparagraph (e) reads:

The Eurocontrol route charges system will continue on its present lines. The new multilateral agreement on route charges will be signed by the seven member states and the four non-member states now associated with the system, Austria, Portugal, Switzerland and Spain.

It has been indicated that other countries which do not belong to Eurocontrol may be able to sign, but what I want to know is when will all this happen, both with regard to the new multilateral agreement and the new convention protocol?

The Minister comes back to the point again — indicating that he attaches considerable importance to it — that one of the major differences between the present and the amended convention is that all air traffic control facilities and services will be national instead of communal. Its appearance several times in the Minister's speech must indicate that he and his Department regard that as an important change.

Buying in was also mentioned; what could be regarded as an easy payment system was worked out. I have already congratulated the Minister and his officials on achieving this special treatment. According to the Minister's speech the cost of installation was £9 million. I would like to see a breakdown of that figure because I presume he means £9 million at today's prices; but if he does not, that £9 million should be upped to a significantly higher figure. It is not really a four-year easy payments system, but a non-return of moneys to the Irish Exchequer over a four year period to a total value of £2.5 million. If, for example, we are estimating £10 million of a return this year, we will be well able to cope with a quarter of £2.5 million this year and the next three years.

Reference was made to the Bretigny centre. I would like to know what specific benefit we derive from it. Do we send people to Bretigny for training? Do they publish the results of their experiments and simulations? I dare say that for simulation training our officers would have to go to Bretigny itself.

Recently there was in the news an event that puzzled air navigation people, that was the Viscount disaster off the south-east coast. The theory has been advanced — and I hope we will be able to get evidence as to whether this will or will not hold water — that there was simulated air traffic in the area when inexplicably the Viscount went down. From our scientific personnel or from any investigations since then, have we had a satisfactory explanation of that disaster? When I was in the Department of Transport I examined the file very carefully and was convinced by the proposition put to me, but I would like a more thorough examination of the evidence, particularly the evidence of the statement which I found in the file at that time that there were no such simulated aircraft released into that area on that particular Sunday.

The Minister continued:

The amending protocol will enable Eurocontrol to expand and strengthen its control in the development and operation of a co-ordinated European air traffic control system.

The point has been made that we have services beyond what we need as a nation and those services are made available at a fee to those who use our air space. I may have digressed a little when I was talking about those charges but I would like to know what are the bases for the allocation of money for the use of our space. I presume these charges are universal — in other words, that the criteria that apply to charges we make are the same as those that are applied by other states and that this money is put into the Eurocontrol fund and then dispensed to us. Under the new régime will the payments be made direct to us or will there still be payments made into Eurocontrol now that each nation controls its own destiny so far as air navigation is concerned?

The Minister referred to national control. He said:

Under the amending protocol, various powers which were vested in Eurocontrol revert to national control. ...

This Bill effectively removes the supranational authority vested in Eurocontrol by virtue of the 1960 Convention and the Act of 1963.

He reiterates that Ireland never gave full effect to that, using the bilateral system instead.

With regard to the amendment of the 1963 and 1971 Acts, I made some points in my general remarks at the beginning of my speech. I am sure the Minister will be able to enlighten me on a number of points. It seems that the body of the Bill is devoted to how we can make people pay up who have not already done so and how we can avoid people escaping their responsibilities. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House if there is much of this happening, where people do not actually pay what they owe.

There is great elaboration with regard to personnel of the organisations, the enforceability of a determination made, the documentation, the proceedings for the recovery of sums due to the organisations — the High Court is mentioned as our legal agency — and enforcement of a determination by a court in the State in other contracting states. I would be interested to know why we should have such a heavy apparatus here to deal with defectors or with "decisions" forcing people to pay up who have failed to do so. I know that two major trans-Atlantic companies fell into the ocean, so to speak, at one time, Laker being one and Braniff the other. In such circumstances if such companies owe you money how can you get it back, particularly if the companies are bankrupt? Is there any way you can get it back from the home state of the operating company? Is there any international fund out of which such debts can be paid?

These are a few thoughts on the draft Bill, the general subject of navigation and the legal aspects of forcing these determinations to produce money for the country to which they owe it. I would be interested if the Minister would let us know about the new convention, the new protocol and the new multilateral agreement on route charges.

Other Deputies are anxious to make their contributions on this and I will end by saying, as I said at the beginning, that the objective of Eurocontrol when set up was to bring order into a developing chaos — one could put it that way — with the increased air traffic, the increased speed of development in aeronautics and the development generally of fast transport and the opportunities and dangers that it brought. This Bill in aiding that objective deserves the support of the House.

Mr. Manning

It is clear that we are discussing very complicated and technical legislation which is of enormous importance to the everyday functioning of not just Europe but the world. I would like to compliment the Minister of State on the very clear analysis of the issues which he gave us today and on his very fluent exposition of the very complex matters involved. He succeeded in so far as is possible in putting the issues into plain, straightforward language and it is clear that he has thought very deeply about this Bill. I also compliment Deputy Wilson on his very erudite performance. I did not quite catch the Latin tag which he put on the Minister's intervention but I am sure I will find it in the Official Report.

Mr. Wilson

It is Spanish.

Mr. Manning

The Minister of State will probably agree with me that this type of legislation would be better discussed in an Oireachtas committee. I am sure that he would have liked to join in the discussion and the questions which many of us would like to have put to him during the course of the Bill and I hope we can do this on Committee Stage.

I preface my remarks on the Bill by bringing to the Minister of State's mind the enormous problems which face the entire aviation industry today and I urge him and the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, to give priority to the development of an overall comprehensive aviation policy and an overall comprehensive airports policy. Our national airline has been in existence for over 40 years now and it is a symbol of a performance of which we are all justly proud. However, we have seen in the development of aviation policy over the years a certain haphazardness, a certain amount of stop-go, a certain amount of ill-considered and ill-advised planning. There is a compelling need for an overall aviation policy into which the development of the next decade or so can be fitted. I am certain that the Minister will be enthusiastic about that, and in that he will have the full support of what has always been a very effective and good aviation industry.

As to the need for an overall airports policy — this is not a party point — we have only to look at the whole Knock episode to realise that never again must we allow this type of major commitment of capital and major planning of a project to go ahead in this way. We all agree that there is a growing need for modest, functional regional airports and for a more widespread network of service from these regional airports. Now is the time, and it is not too late to bring this development about in a rational way which serves our national needs best. Never again must we trust ourselves to the ad hoc developments or give way to outrageous local demands which can be found in all parts of the country — these local pressures are not part of just one section of the country. We must ensure that within the framework of a developed, thought-out airports and aviation policy these pressures can be withstood.

Regarding the Bill, the Minister has made very well the case for far greater co-ordination. It is now 23 years since the Eurocontrol International Convention on the Co-operation for the Safety of Air Navigation was signed. The reasons for that at that time still exist today. They are: organisation in the requirements of air traffic control, the need to come to grips with the problem, the growing number of aircraft flying at much higher speeds, the pace at which aeronautical sciences are advancing and the greater inter-dependence of all industrialised countries. In the 23 years since the first convention was signed every one of these reasons has been amplified and extended and so the need today for this legislation was made extremely clear by the Minister.

I was touched by the confidence which Deputy Wilson had in the lasting effects of this Government. He hoped that in 1988 the Minister would see the appointment of an Irishman as the next director-general. I know the Deputy's confidence in the longevity of this Government and the durability of the Minister will be well founded, but I would take issue with him when he insisted that this appointment go to a man. I hope that at that stage it will be an Irish person.

Mr. Wilson

I said man or woman.

Mr. Manning

I did not hear the Deputy at that point.

Mr. Wilson

Check the record.

Mr. Manning

I will be happy to accept the Deputy's assurance on this that his party have undergone a change of mind as to the representation of women in many areas of our national life. However, the Minister was right to praise the permanent commission for the unsung work it has done.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 7 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24 November 1983.