Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 6 Jun 1986

Vol. 367 No. 7

Air Navigation and Transport (Preinspection) Bill, 1986: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question "That the Bill be now read a Second Time" put and agreed to.

Dublin North West): We will now proceed to Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, to delete lines 18 to 22, and substitute the following:

" `the Agreement' means the Agreement which is set out in the Schedule to this Act, and which is to be made between the Government and the government of the United States, and which relates to the preinspection in the State of persons (including aircrew) travelling by air to the United States, and references in this Act to `the Agreement' shall include a reference to the Agreement when made;".

This is an amendment of a minor drafting nature. It takes account of the fact that the preinspection agreement has not yet been signed. The agreement will be signed on behalf of the two Governments and come into effect when its terms have been approved by the Dáil and the Bill becomes law.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

This section provides that the Minister shall be the competent authority in Ireland for the purposes of the preinspection agreement. This reflects the provision in the agreement, Article I, that:

(2) for the purposes of this agreement, the competent authorities shall be (a) for the Government of the United States of America: the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, (b) for the Government of Ireland: the Minister for Communications, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, or any authority nominated by him.

Subsection (2) provides that the Minister may, by order, appoint an appropriate person or body to carry out certain specified functions of the competent authority. It is proposed, for example, that the following functions should be delegated to Aer Rianta:

—to enter into arrangements with air carriers wishing to avail of preinspection — section 3 of the Bill and Article VIII of agreement;

—under a permanent scheme of preinspection, to be responsible for the collection of fees payable by participating airlines in respect of preinspection — section 4 and Aritcle X,

—under a permanent scheme of preinspection to be responsible, as provided for in Article X(2), for the reimbursement to the INS of the additional cost of providing preinspection at the point of departure from Ireland compared with the cost of INS inspection upon arrival in the United States. The fees which will be payable by airlines participating in preinspection will cover these costs.

Subsections (3) and (4) are standard provisions concerning the amendment and revocation of orders under this section and the procedure for the laying of such orders before the House.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

This section provides for a competent authority to enter into agreements with eligible air carriers wishing to avail of preinspection. This is one of the functions which it is envisaged will be delegated to Aer Rianta under section 2. Subsection (2) provides that any such agreement must specify the terms and conditions under which preinspection would be carried out. Article VIII of the agreement provides for certain conditions under which airlines shall have the option to use preinspection including: (1) a reasonable notice period for applications in order to allow the INS to make suitable arrangements; (2) notice period of six months for complete withdrawal from preinspection except in certain circumstances where 30 days' notice will be acceptable; (3) reasonable notice for withdrawal from preinspection of certain flights only and the conditions under which withdrawal of such flights may be permitted. The INS may decline to permit such withdrawal in circumstances where alternative arrangements cannot be made for inspection in the US. Nevertheless, the agreement specifies that, in the case of last minute flight disruptions, the notice given by the INS could be very short: (5) a requirement that airlines will, (a) take steps to deny carriage onwards to the US for persons found ineligible by the INS to travel to a preinspected flight, (b) undertake responsibility to return such person to his point of embarkation or country of origin and to bear any costs, including accommodation and maintenance, which may arise. Provision (a) means that the airlines will make it a condition on the sale of a ticket to any passenger travelling on a preinspected flight that he or she will not be permitted to travel on the flight to the US in the event of being inadmissible by the INS at Shannon. Provision (b) is self explanatory.

Subsection (3) defines eligible air carriers as any air carrier which operates a non-stop service between the State and the United States whether the air service originates in the State or elsewhere. The formula has been used because the greatest potential benefit of preinspection is in the attraction of additional transit traffic, for example, flights originating at various European points which would not normally land at Shannon but which would do so in order to avail of preinspection.

The agreement entered into pursuant to subsection (1) of this section specifies the terms and conditions under which preinspection will be carried out. Will Aer Rianta be the competent authority appointed by the Minister?

Have the terms and conditions under which preinspection will be carried out been agreed between the Minister's Department and the United States authorities or have further details to be worked out?

It provides for negotiations and discussions as to the exact terms and conditions. It is my intention to nominate Aer Rianta as the competent authority and it will be their responsibility to discuss terms and conditions with the INS.

This will come into effect on 1 July and, therefore, I presume that the Department have gone into detail in this regard?

Yes, a lot of preliminary work has been done by my Department and Aer Rianta and the United States and Aer Rianta are gearing themselves to be ready for operations from 1 July.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

This section makes provision for the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to prescribe by regulation, fees in relation to the preinspection of passengers and air crew.

The Minister read out details of fees and how air carriers are to be charged. However, at times he speaks like a Corkman and it is easy to miss part of what he says. Am I correct in assuming that his references to charges in his reply to Second Stage referred to section 4?

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill".

Section 5 provides that it shall be lawful for US citizens who are permanent US Government employees and who are assigned to preinspection duties at Shannon to carry out the duties which are specified in the section.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

The purpose of this section is to provide a legal basis for the status to be accorded to US Government employees who are assigned to preinspection duties in Ireland. Subsection (1) provides that such US officials shall have immunity from civil and criminal prosecutions before the Irish courts in respect of acts performed in the exercise of their duties under the agreement. The duties concerned are specified in Article IX (1) of the agreement and section 5 of the Bill. They are also specified in section 6 (2) of the Bill, as the parliamentary draftsman considered that this was necessary.

Section 6 (3) says the immunity granted to employees of the US Government pursuant to subsection (1) of this section may be waived by that Government. What sort of situation is envisaged here? Is it in regard to attacking people?

This is a normal provision in international agreements. If, for instance, one of these people is alleged to have committed an offence in the course of his duty, the US Government might feel that it was serious enough for them to waive the immunity so that a prosecution or whatever was thought necessary could take place in this country.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill".

This section of the Bill deals with provisions relating to aliens control. Subsection (1) stipulates that persons arriving at an airport in the State for preinspection are not deemed to have landed in the State and are consequently not required to present themselves to an Irish immigration official for permission to land, in the same way as persons who are merely transiting at an airport are not required to do so.

However, under subsection (2), persons who are refused permission by the INS to travel onwards to the US are required to present themselves to the Irish immigration authorities to be deal with in accordance with the terms of aliens legislation.

Under the agreement — Article VIII (4) — air carriers participating in preinspection are obliged to refuse carriage onwards to the US to any person found ineligible by the INS to travel on a prein spected flight. They will also be respon sible for returning any such person to his or her point of origin or country of nationality.

In the event of such a person being refused permission to land here under the Aliens (Amendment) Order, 1975, the might have to be held in an authorised place of detention, in accordance with the order, should a suitable flight out o Ireland not be available quickly. Whethe such a person would be so detained, o would be temporarily released, would b a matter for decision by the Irish immigration authorities. Article VII (4) of the agreement also provides that in such circumstances the airline concerned would be obliged to bear any costs arising, including accommodation and maintenance costs.

I missed the part about who is to pay for the cost of holding persons.

This would fall on the airline concerned.

There would be no cost to the taxpayer?

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

This section updates the maximum level of fines prescribed in the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1950, for offences committed at State airports viz:

—refusal to give name and address to an authorised officer, or giving a false name or address,

—refusal to leave a State airport when required to do so by an authorised officer,

—returning to an airport, having been required to leave by an authorised officer on the same day, (the maximum fine for the above offences has been increased from £5 to £250).

—obstructing or impeding an authorised officer in the execution of his duties.

—assault on an authorised officer in the exercise of his duties, (the maximum fine in respect of these offences has been increased from £20 to £1,000. The maximum prison sentence, applicable at the direction of the court, remains at 6 months).

An authorised officer is defined in the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1950, as a person being——

(a) a member of the Garda Síochána, or

(b) any person belonging to a class authorised in writing by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by section 19 and 20 of the Act.

The Airport Security Force are so authorised.

SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, line 39, to delete "a passenger", and substitute "a person".

This is a minor amendment substituting "a person" for "a passenger". Its purpose is to ensure that Article (VII) (5) applies to any person that is, passengers or aircraft crew members and not just to passengers who are refused passage onwards to the US in accordance with US immigration and public health laws and regulations. The INS would be required immediately to inform the Irish immigration authorities of any such refusal and supply all relevant data. This amendment has been agreed with the US authorities.

Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

I want to thank the Deputies, and especially the main Opposition, for facilitating the speedy passage of this important Bill through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am very grateful for the widespread support of the House for this provision. I know that the whole House joins with me in wishing this measure every success.

Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 June 1986.
Top
Share