On this section I should like to emphasise a point which I made on Second Stage, a point to which Deputy Kelly addressed himself on occasion, that is, the question of terminology. In section 1 "determination" means a decision. My thesis and Deputy Kelly's thesis is that if it is a decision it should be called a decision. We should stop wrapping legal terminology in archaicisms which tend to confuse the people for whom the legislation is meant.
Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Bill, 1983: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 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 must say at this stage that the Minister treated some of my questions on Second Stage in a rather cavalier fashion when we was winding up, and did not take them seriously. I hope to get an opportunity to mention most of them as we go through Committee Stage now. I asked whether this Bill covered military matters and I did not get any comment from the Minister. I may be wrong but as far as I remember, he did not face up to that question and give me an answer. Later I may ask him again.
Why have we this elaborate inviolability for all official papers and documents? I should like to have that teased out. For example, is our Minister for Foreign Affairs so honoured when he goes to Brussels? Are the Commissioners of the EEC so honoured with this inviolability? It seems to me to be breaking a nut with a sledge hammer and to be building up the personnel involved in executive duties in Eurocontrol.
The Director-General of the Agency has to be specially mentioned and wrapped in some form of inviolability. The section states:
(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.
Immunity from jurisdiction is conferred on the Director-General of Eurocontrol. No satisfactory explanation was given by the Minister of State on Second Stage as to why this should be so. Section 2 also provides:
(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 is real cloak and dagger stuff. It seems to me to be special pleading for a very important institution. Is it going too far? Why is it here at all? Apparently it was not thought of in earlier Bills. Has something happened to make it necessary? Are we suspicious that something might happen? I should like the Minister to tease it out for me.
The privileges and immunities specified in this section are intended to ensure the proper functioning of the organisation and the safeguarding of its interests. It is common practice to extend privileges and immunities enjoyed by senior diplomatic staff to the secretaries and Directors-General of international organisations. The Deputy said some of the points raised by him on Second, Stage were treated by me in a cavalier fashion. That was the Deputy's interpretation, but it was not my intention.
I thank the Minister for his explanation about the general points. On section 2, the Minister simply stated that it was fact that this happened. He did not give any reason why it should happen, or why it should be incorporated in the Bill. I should like to know if it is necessary in relation to this organisation. It is applied to people who, by definition, hold far more important posts in the EEC, or in any of the other international agencies which are now operating, and some people would say proliferating?
Care is taken in section 2 to ensure that everything except a road traffic offence is permissible to the Director-General and that all official papers and documents carried by representatives are especially covered by law. I cannot understand why the section is here. What is the necessity for it, if people holding more important posts have not got it? I know Ambassadors have it. The Minister simply states that it is done. I have not got any reason why it should be done.
It is common practice in organisations of this type. Facilities granted to the staff of Eurocontrol under the new subsection (7) and to representatives of member states of Eurocontrol under the new subsection (9) are solely for the purpose of ensuring full independence in the discharge of their duties and not for their personal benefit. The provision covering inviolability relates to official papers and documents. These provisions are much less than those currently conferred on persons employed in other European and international organisations such as the European Space Agency, European Committees and the United Nations.
In section 2 the new subsection (8) provides that the Director-General shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction in respect of acts excluding road traffic offences and damage caused by a motor vehicle belonging to him or driven by him, but including words spoken or written. To me the immunity as stated there is much wider than that in section 2, new subsections (7) and (9), which cover official papers and documents. The sky seems to be the limit of immunity for the Director-General. The only matters excluded are road traffic offences or damage caused by a motor vehicle driven by him or belonging to him. I am submitting to the House that the immunity granted is greater than is necessary for the proper functioning of the Director-General of the agency, and for that reason I object to the all-embracing nature of section 2 (8).
There is a difference between sections 7 and 9 and section 8. Section 8 refers to the Director-General of the Agency. The other two sections refer to the staff. The staff have inviolability for papers and documents. It is common practice to extend the privileges enjoyed by senior diplomatic staff to the Secretary and Director-General of international organisations and this is no different from any other organisation.
Does that mean that if the Director-General commits murder in Brussels he has immunity because, as the section reads, it seems to me that will be so?
I would not think so.
He has immunity in respect of acts other than acts which constitute road traffic offences or acts whereby damage was caused by a motor vehicle belonging to or driven by him. It is a very large immunity.
Question put and declared carried.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (5), line 28, to delete "a court", and to substitute "the court".
Is that a reference to the High Court?
The Supreme Court.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I asked a question on Second Stage which I do not think was answered. If it was answered I apologise, but I do not remember the Minister answering it. I mentioned two large companies going out of business, Laker and Braniff, and I asked if any debts were due as a result of these two large companies going out of business. I do not remember the Minister giving that information. The question I asked was what happens if a company is bankrupt and still owes money for the en route charges? Is there any fund, international or otherwise, to which the country which is owed money can have recourse?
The Eurocontrol centre continues to monitor the situation in regard to any necessary legal proceedings. My information is that there are no outstanding charges owed.
I did not quite get the full gist of the Minister's reply. I am not saying he is fudging it but, if there is money owed by Braniff, what are the possibilities of recovering it? How much is owed?
I do not have the actual detail of what is owed but, as I said, the Eurocontrol centre is continuing to monitor the situation in regard to any necessary legal proceedings.
I know the Minister's style very well and I know he comes from Dunmore. Would he think positively and answer straight and bluntly? What he has given me is about as fudged an answer as I have ever listened to in this House. It is not the Minister's own style. I want to know does Braniff owe money to this country through Eurocontrol and, if so, how much and what are the possibilities of recovering it?
There is a great deal in legislation that goes through this House that is not my style. I am sure it is not the Deputy's style either. There are many things in this Bill that are not my style. They may be the Deputy's style now.
Fudging is a disease.
I know it is a disease. They owe $300,000.
The second part of my question is what steps are being taken to recover that money. This is very important. It is relevant to section 7. The point I am trying to make is that the body of the Bill is concerned with the legal formula—the protocol, so to speak—of how to get a determination or decision. What is the use of having a decision or determination if one cannot in fact recover the boodle? That is the point.
Eurocontrol centre is in actual fact considering legal proceedings in regard to this money.
It was found as a result of experience in the insurance business that some people were not insured while driving cars and caused death or injury to others, and the wisdom garnered from that experience resulted in this House making provision for a fund and the insurance companies had a responsibility to provide that fund. In my opinion it would be important for Eurocontrol to establish such a fund which could be drawn upon when an air company would seriously default.
There is no such fund available, but through the Eurocontrol centre office we can institute proceedings which would be internationally recognised and through which we would recover from whatever country in which they may have operated.
That is important. If they are paying a dime in the dollar to their creditors there is no way we can benefit or recover the moneys lawfully owed to us, and I am asking the Minister would he undertake to write to Eurocontrol and ask them to address themselves to that type of problem.
We certainly will, and I am sure that will be investigated by the Minister for Transport in the coming year.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
With the indulgence of the Chair, I have one comment on this section to the effect that the Eurocontrol body could become missionaries with regard to their own regulations in this. I mentioned the unfortunate incident of the South Korean airliner and the importance of having rational ways for dealing with forcing aircraft to land. Admittedly, that was a civil aircraft shot down by military aircraft, but there should be rational procedures to enable difficulties which may arise from a wandering civil aircraft to be dealt with without causing death and destruction.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, paragraph (a), line 6, to delete “Act,” and substitute “Act or',”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and passed.