Amendment No. 4 in the names of Deputies De Rossa, Mac Giolla, Sherlock and McCartan. I observe that amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are cognate and I suggest, therefore, that we debate amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Air navigation and Transport Bill, 1987 [ Seanad ]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question, "That section 5 stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, line 8, after "security", to insert, "defence".
I agree to the Ceann Comhairle's suggestion that we take amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 together as they relate to the same issue. The Workers' Party propose that, in addition to the areas of concern the Minister may regulate for with regard to aerodromes, we want to include the concept of defence and defence measures attached to those facilities. I have already touched on this briefly in earlier remarks with regard to the Minister's proposal to take responsibility from his Department for any facilities under the control of the Minister for Defence. That matter has now been agreed to by the House but without the support of The Workers' Party. This says very specifically that the Minister in dealing with civil facilities should be in a position to recognise the potential military significance of these facilities and for that reason should be able to deal with matters that might arise or affect that potentiality.
It is conceded that in the Bill as drafted the concept of security and safety is there, but if one takes them together, the intent under those terms as the Bill stands, is to deal with aspects of civil security and safety surrounding the aerodromes. We are concerned about our position as an active neutral nation. At all times we should be in a position to defend that neutrality by ensuring that any civil or military facility cannot be readily available for use by hostile or invading forces. We expect a Minister with primary responsibility for civil aviation, recognising the potential value of civil facilities to hostile or invading forces, to have the authority to lay down standards and directions with regard to defence and we are proposing the addition of the word "defence". It may not add to the current intent of the Government but it helps to clarify and make it possible for the Minister to act in the area of ensuring that whatever directions or standards he or his Department seek to make can and would include the concept of defence in the context of our neutrality. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
The amendment is unacceptable, as indicated earlier in relation to another amendment. The Deputy's amendment would require the Minister for Tourism and Transport to become involved in matters which are the direct responsibility of the Minister for Defence. Defence matters are also outside the remit of the National Civil Aviation Committee established to advise the Government on civil aviation security. To include "defence" would take from the Minister for Defence his responsibility in defence and security matters. The Minister for Transport and Tourism has the power only to provide for civil aviation and not for military aviation. It would not be wise to accept this amendment.
I want to pursue this further for the purposes of clarification of the issue. Will the Minister advise the House whether a Minister for Defence can regulate on defence issues or matters appertaining to the civil aerodromes or the civil airports? If one accepts the argument that civil installations have a potential use for invading or hostile forces which would not discriminate between a civil and military airport, can the Minister for Defence regulate the potential defence aspects of civil airports? If the Minister cannot, I am happy with the situation and I will concede the point: otherwise, I would suggest that this legislation is dealing with civil installations it should be open to the Minister for Tourism and the Minister for Communications with specific responsibility for the regulations of the aerodromes to say that he wants to direct that an aerodrome be made safe not just from the civil point of view of the security of people using the aerodrome but also from hostile or invading forces. If the Minister says that the Minister for Defence has authority to impinge upon civil facilities and institutions to direct that works can be carried out, I will be happy. I am not talking about the erection of military-style installations. In visiting abroad one often sees on major roadways along aerodromes physical barriers which would prevent aircraft landing. When talking about ports there is often the facility to lay mines quickly or to erect barriers for the purposes of making them unusable. I am not talking about the building of battlements or gun posts but just those facilities that can be readily made available to make an airport unusable to anyone who wishes to use it with adverse effect on the national security.
The Minister's argument that refusing the amendment in the name of The Workers' Party is to preserve a division between his Department and that of the Minister for Defence could be applied equally to the Minister for Defence in another context. If we were asked to look after civil institutions he could say that he did not want to trespass on an area that was the remit of the Minister for Tourism and Transport. If I can be satisfied about this position I will be happy to leave it but otherwise it is something to which the Minister might give more consideration.
The Minister for Defence may impinge in civil areas but only when it applies to general defence and security. I can give the Deputy that assurance. If general defence and security requires the involvement of the Minister for Defence he can become involved. If the Deputy wishes to know how that procedure can be accommodated I would refer him to the advisory committee which comprises the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defence.
It is a matter that should not await general issues of defence. It is something we should deal with on an ongoing basis, on the basis that we maintain a certain neutrality. If we are neutral we should not be available in any shape or form to a superior power that would seek to utilise us. That is the general drift of my argument. However, I accept what the Minister has said in clarifying the matter and I do not propose to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 14, after "writing", to insert "but not less frequently than each year".
This is to insert into section 7 a requirement that the reporting in writing to the Minister of measures taken to comply with the directions in section 6 should be not less frequent than once a year. The Workers' Party are concerned about this because we recognise the very important development that this legislation represents nationally and the incredible proliferation of aerodromes or air facilities around the country. Given the earlier comments of the Minister this morning clarifying the definition of aerodrome to include heliports and all forms of aircraft and air traffic, including all facilities that would be usable, publicly or privately in this area, and given the incredible workload on the Department that this will now represent, we suggest that an obligation be placed on the proprietors of aerodromes to report on an annual basis to his Department on the measures and works undertaken by the aerodrome owners to comply with the directions of safety and security that he will issue.
In the Bill, as I understand it, it is proposed as an initiation process to have a general declaration circulated to all aerodrome owners and proprietors to tell them that the legislation is now in place and to set down minimum standards and requirements. It would be greatly in ease of the Minister and his officials if they could be assured of receipt on an annual basis at least of a report as to what is being done to implement it. The work that will be required on our aerodromes — I do not know whether this is fully appreciated, — particularly in the private end — will be considerable to make them safe and have them standardised within the regulations envisaged, and for that reason will not be completed in a day, a week or in a year. The amendment is drafted in such a way as to ensure that should the Minister require more frequent reports he can avail of them. We are simply saying that at least every aerodrome facility in the country would be required to update and report on an annual basis what is being done to comply with the regulations. If the Minister indicates that he is now satisfied that the requirements have been complied with, obviously the necessity of ongoing reports does not arise. For that reason I think it is a sensible and workable amendment and I hope the Minister will accept it.
I am sorry to disappoint the Deputy. In my view this amendment is not required and it should not be pressed. The obligation on any aerodrome operator to report to the Minister for Tourism and Transport under section 7 of the Bill only arises where the Minister had to issue a direction to the aerodrome operator under section 6 of the Bill as to the standards of security and safety to be complied with by that aerodrome. Section 7, as it stands, allows the Minister to require such a report as and when he considers it necessary to check that required action is taken on foot of the direction given under section 6. Indeed, the obligation proposed in The Workers' Party amendment could involve the making of a nil report where no report was called for. I hope the Deputy will accept that the Minister can request and require a report at any time, and that should be sufficient. That is why I indicated at the outset that the amendment is not required and I hope he will not press it.
This section is rather loose and does not apply a uniform or standardised approach to aerodromes in general. The discretion left to the Minister is such that one must be concerned at the degree of variation that could arise in the Department's approach to the various aerodromes. I would be concerned about the lack of a time limit in the actual furnishing of a direction and the furnishing of a report. It is a report in such form and within such time and at such intervals as the Minister may specify in writing. It is very much at the discretion of the Minister. In the interests of overall safety and security of aerodromes, throughout the country, perhaps the Minister would consider a more specific approach in this area. As my colleague, Deputy Bruton said when speaking on section 6, a rather loose approach is being adopted. It is important that this House would have legislation enacted that would not give the same discretion to the Department as is suggested in the Bill. There are inherent dangers in the Bill. I ask that the Minister would examine this section with a view to bringing in something on Report Stage so that there would be a more standardised and uniform approach and that all aerodromes would be required annually to furnish a report in writing to the Department regarding their safety regulations and everything the Minister considers fit. There should be regulations under which annual reports could be requested from them. Perhaps the Minister would consider that for Report Stage.
Lest there be any impression that there are serious shortcomings in aerodrome security or safety, I would like to indicate that there are not, but even if there were we are now legislating, through this Bill, to ensure that any of the shortcomings referred to by members would not arise. Subsection (1) imposes a specific duty on every aerodrome operator to report to the Minister for Tourism and Transport when required. Subsection (3) makes it an offence for a person to refuse or fail to report to the Minister for Tourism and Transport when required or to give false statements in such a report.
I would also point out that the maximum penalties for such an offence are provided for in section 27 of the Bill. If it is necessary I will put on the record the extent of these finds. A person shall be liable on summary convinction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 and or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £50,000 and or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years. I suggest to the Deputies that this legislation, in all its sections, is providing for any doubts or misgivings that Members may have. The Minister at all times is answerable to this House and if at any time Members feel that the legislation or regulations are not being effected there are procedures here in the House whereby such matters can be raised. Members can be satisfied that this legislation provides for whatever reports are necessary.
I have indicated that the Minister is empowered to look for a report at any time. If we put into this section that aerodromes are only obliged to submit an annual report and if a report is required before that annual report is due, then the Minister's hands are tied. We would not be able to request the report. The terms of the Bill are much stronger by leaving out the proposal in The Workers' Party amendment for an annual report. If it is left as it is, the Minister can ask for a report at any time and he does not have to wait for an annual report as has been suggested.
How would the Minister under this legislation or at present decide when to ask for a report? Is it because of a hunch he has or some definite information? Is there not some protection there? There must be something continually coming to the Department giving the information. Unless some limit is provided within legislation the Minister may not ask for a report from some aerodrome for ten years and maybe five years from another. Could he not provide for at least an annual report in the interest of safety and security? How do the Minister and his Department decide when the report should be furnished to them and on what grounds should it be furnished?
All aerodrome operators are, on a continuing basis, subject to the Departments inspectorate and if the inspectorate see the need for a report or are not happy with some area of activity, the obvious procedure to be followed is that the inspectorate would bring to notice some misdemeanour occurring in some aerodrome and on the basis of the inspectorate's report the Minister would pursue the operator in question under the terms of this legislation. I am happy that the legislation is adequate to meet all the contingencies that might occur or seem to be creating some sort of doubt in Deputies' minds. I assure them that the inspectors within the Department are monitoring each aerodrome and each activity on an ongoing basis. There need be no doubt that if there is seen to be or even a doubt about any transgression at an aerodrome the Minister would act quickly on the basis of the strength he has in this legislation which is updating all the previous Acts and strengthening legislation in many cases.
Given the decrease in public service staff and the increase in the number of aerodromes, would the Minister not see it as of assistance to him and his Department if something was built into the legislation which would require at minimum an annual inspection and an annual report so that the Minister for Finance would be compelled to provide him with the staff necessary to do that work?
I have made the point that the obligation required in The Workers' Party amendment could involve the making of a nil report. On the point the Deputy is making about the Civil Service and the public service generally, why should we load them with reports that in many cases would not be necessary if nil reports are coming in? Is it not sufficient to require, request, demand, to ensure that the report is provided when one is necessary based on the continuous monitoring of the inspectorate within the Department?
I would like to come back on a number of points. I ask the Minister to have regard to the wording of the amendment which is: "but not less frequently than each year". Consequently the amendment in no way ties the Minister's hands or makes it difficult or impossible for him as Minister to require reports as frequently as he feels is necessary or desirable. The purpose of the amendment is simply to recognise the importance of the legislation and ensure the Minister would have the statutory basis of requiring of all aerodrome operators an annual report, even if it amounts to a nil report. I see an advantage in the Department getting a nil report even if it tells that the aerodrome is alive and well and reporting and that no progress has been made on specific works required, and alerts one to the fact that all is not moving as it should be in that area. I would not worry about the fact that a report says, "We are reporting for the purposes of the Act and advising that matters have not progressed beyond the last time". That might alert one to all kinds of problems appertaining to that.
The amendment does not tie the Minister's hands in any way and it is wrong of him to suggest it does. If the Minister tells us the amendment is superfluous and unnecessary and of no ease, that will not break our commitment to the legislation or cause a division. Nevertheless it is there for a good reason and the Minister should look carefully at it before he rejects it.
An aspect of the Minister's response that worries me a little is the suggestion that all things are well and good in the aerodrome. I do not believe that is the case. I accept fully that our three major aerodromes under the authority of the State at Cork, Shannon and Dublin are excellent at working as well as they can within the confines of resources available and they have an excellent safety record, but this legislation is primarily, I understand, to ensure that all other civil and privately owned air facilities are brought under the legislative control of the Minister and that all aspects of international treaties will be applicable to them. Why then, if all things are rosy and happy, are we legislating at all? The third busiest aerodrome in the country works out of a farmyard at the west side of this city. As a visitor to it, let me say it does not instil in me confidence that all the best facilities of safety and security are working there. I am saying that as a civilian with no expertise on the area and perhaps I should not say it at all. Perhaps that facility is working as well as anyone could ever hope, but the impression is that it is not.
If one goes down the Liffey one finds a heliport on the side surrounded by palisade fencing and I understand helicopters can come and go there at will. There seems to be no facility for advising someone using the heliport of the dangers of wind on the river or any independent controls keeping members of the public back. From my unaided, unspecific observation that does not convince me that all is right and well there. It may well be and someone may tell me so, but I wonder why we are legislating at all if things are as good and happy as is implied. I understand in the context of this legislation that a great deal of work had to be done in bringing our facilities and aerodromes up to standard, regulating them, policing them and seeing that things are good. If I am wrong about that I would be happy for the Minister to tell me so. I understood that for much of the work that would be necessary time would be required and it would be of assistance to the Department that at minimum in all instances an annual report be prepared of progress being made. In no way as the amendment is drafted does it impinge on the Minister's authority. If he felt the thing should be done in a shorter period than a year — and he should be told as a matter of urgency — the Minister can order so. This mechanism seeks to link all aerodrome facilities and have them reporting to the Department on work being undertaken to make them comply with the regulations. If the Minister says he does not think the amendment is necessary I will not press it but I felt it important to make my point.
I should like to assure the Deputy that all amendments are given careful consideration. When I say that the amendment is not required it is important to add that that decision was not taken lightly. The contributions of Deputies are of immense value so that we can get on the record what we are aiming to achieve through the Bill. Section 7 is designed to enable the Minister to monitor the extent of compliance with directions given by him under section 6 regarding the security and safety measures to be met at aerodromes and to determine whether there is a need for further directions to be given under that section. Deputy Taylor-Quinn suggested that there should be an annual report. To specifically state that we would require an annual report is not the ideal way to deal with this matter and I would respectfully suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
An Leas Cheann-Comhairle
Deputy McCartan has indicated that he is not enthusiastic about pressing the amendment and with so many miles left to travel we should move on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
An Leas Cheann-Comhairle
Amendment No. 10 is in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 11 is related. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 11, to delete "an".
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are drafting amendments to deal with the same point.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 12, before "aircraft" to delete "an".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 12 is in the name of the Minister and, by agreement, we will take amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, subsection (1) line 21, to delete ",after the commencement of this Act,".
The purpose of amendments Nos. 12 and 13 is to correct a drafting flaw in section 10.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) This section shall come into operation on the expiry of one month after the commencement of this Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 14 is in the names of Deputies De Rossa, Mac Giolla, Sherlock and McCartan. Amendment No. 19 is cognate and we will take the two amendments together.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, subsection (1) (a), line 48, to delete "or any article having the appearance of a firearm" and substitute "or an imitation firearm".
The Minister may have a perfect answer to this amendment but I should like to make a case for the inclusion of it on behalf of The Workers' Party. I am suggesting that we should utilise the language of the existing firearms legislation. We are proposing the inclusion of a definition of an imitation firearm. This is the first occasion I have seen wording similar to that contained in section 11, "any article having the appearance of a firearm". The existing firearms legislation includes the words "imitation firearm". They may amount to the same thing but for the purpose of ensuring that the provision is enforceable we should use the same phraseology. I would see some difficulty arising if a prosecution took place under section 11 and if a court was asked to define "any article having the appearance of a firearm". A court does not have a corpus of decided precedent law because all the precedent law that exists relates to “an imitation firearm”.
In my view, the existing wording is stronger than what the Deputy is proposing in his amendment. The words, "or any article having the appearance of a firearm", internationally include not only imitation firearms — for example, cap guns — but any other article which in the circumstances has the appearance of a firearm. Obviously, the section should provide comprehensively against such articles being brought unlawfully into aerodromes. It is because I am of the opinion that the wording in the Bill is stronger than that in the amendment that I consider the amendment unacceptable.
I am at a loss to understand how the words in the Bill are stronger than the words in the amendment. The courts, in interpreting an imitation firearm, do not confine the interpretation to something that is made up to look like a gun. For example, on occasions the courts have construed a piece of pipe concealed up a sleeve with the barrelend protruding as an imitation firearm because in the circumstances it was capable of that definition. The wording amounts to the same thing and would cover all eventualities. However, I am anxious to point out that our corpus of judge-decided law in interpreting what is an imitation firearm is based on the wording in the firearms Acts and from the point of view of consistency we should stand by those words. If the Minister does not accept that view, and realising that Report Stage must be concluded by 5.30 p.m. this evening, there is little point in me suggesting that he should consider the matter again.
I must point out to the Deputy that we gave careful consideration to this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 20 is cognate and amendments No. 16 and 21 are related.
We will discuss amendments Nos. 15, 16, 20, and 21 together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 8, subsection (2), lines 11 and 12, to delete "or reasonable excuse".
The import of this amendment should be explained. The section allows for reasonable excuse as a possible defence for a person found carrying an article that is a prohibited article under the legislation. The Minister's amendment which seeks to delete "or reasonable excuse" makes it what is known in law as a strict liability offence. The person who is found driving with too much alcohol cannot rely, if arrested, upon "reasonable excuse" by saying he had to get home because his mother was ill or because he got an urgent phone call. It is a strict liability offence if somebody is behind the wheel and has taken excess alcohol and no excuse will exonerate him. This is what the Minister is seeking to do by the deletion in his amendment of "or reasonable excuse". Why were the words inserted in the first instance and what has changed since? Given that this Bill has been subjected to very close scrutiny and that we have had the benefit of a very good debate on it in the Seanad, why are the words now being taken out? Instances can occur where persons, through inadvertance or through any number of reasons, could be found in possession of something that they should not have.
For example, the carrying of weapons in America is constitutionally guaranteed. There have been instances of tourists from this country being found to be carrying weapons here and innocently believing that there was nothing wrong with it. In my years of practice I have seen a number of cases of young people going to Britain or the Continent where air pistols are easily purchased and thinking it would be a great thing to have one for the open fields at home. They are subsequently found in their possession.
There are a great number of instances in which a person in innocent circumstances has a reasonable excuse and he should be allowed use it as a basis for a defence to a charge. The Bill, as it is currently worded, is reasonable and fair and should be allowed stand as it is. I am interested to hear the compelling reasons from the Minister for withdrawing the words now.
We are opposed to the idea of imposing on a defendant in proceedings the onus to prove matters of which he is accused — in other words, we want the deletion of the words "the proof of which shall lie on him". Certainly, if the Minister's amendment is successful in deleting "for reasonable excuse" then these words should also go. The section provides that a person shall not have a prohibited article without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The general principle in criminal law is, and should always be, that he who accuses proves and that the onus rests on the prosecution to make their case. Where they allege an offence, I am opposed in principle to the concept that proof or part of the proofs in the case should rest on the shoulders of the defendent. Where it is alleged that a person is in possession without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, that is a matter for the prosecution to prove and the State should be in a position to do so. The State should, without any difficulty be able to prove that a person does not have lawful authority to have the prohibited article. That would be no difficulty whatsoever. If the Minister's amendment to delete the words "or reasonable excuse" go, then there is no reason why a defendant should be put to the proofs of establishing lawful authority. It runs contrary to general principles and certainly would impose no undue onus on the prosecution to establish to the court's satisfaction that lawful authority did not exist for the possession or carrying of the weapon in question. I urge a twofold approach on the Minister: to allow the amendment to stand as it is with the words "or reasonable excuse" standing; or, in the event that he is disposed to pressing his amendment, as I presume he is, to accede to the suggestion that the additional words "the proof of which shall lie on him" should also be deleted, as is proposed by The Workers' Party amendment.
Deputy McCartan asked why we propose to change the wording now. The advantage of having a Second Stage debate and views being expressed by people here and in the Seanad is that it shows that we are not immune to taking suggestions. We acknowledge that when we further examined the various aspects of the Bill, in view of the various contributions and the ongoing study, we found that in this case the original words we had used were included in the UK Act of 1982. On reflection, we came to the conclusion that by leaving in the words "or reasonable excuse" it would undermine the prohibition on having dangerous articles in aerodromes or on aircraft etc. The purpose of the amendment to sections 11 and 17 is to correct a defect which could have undermined that prohibition on unlawfully having firearms or other dangerous articles at aerodromes or in aircraft. The reason for the change is to strengthen the wording further by removing "or reasonable excuse"— in other words, we are not prepared to take any excuse.
In regard to the Deputy's amendment No. 16, he uses the parallel that if we must leave in one set of wording why not treat the wording in this amendment in the same manner. I will prefix my comments by saying that this amendment is not acceptable. In order to copperfasten the prohibition on unlawfully having firearms and so on in aerodromes, a person claiming lawful authority for having a firearm or an explosive in an aerodrome must be required to produce proof of such authority. That is another parallel that the Deputy drew with other countries. This subsection includes all the items listed in section 11 of the Bill. The amendment, as suggested by the Deputy, is unacceptable for the reasons given.
I accept the reasons the Minister has advanced. Section 11 (1) (d) is drafted in a very wide-ranging way to cover virtually any article and not just a firearm. I gave an example of a person coming from America where it is constitutionally safe to have a firearm or from the Continent where it is so easy to obtain them. The drafting of that paragraph is very wide. It covers any article which is made or is adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person. For example, a stick, a knife, a pen-knife or even an umbrella is capable of that. A person could take off her stiletto shoe and turn on her next door neighbour and she could be accused of being in possession of something that is capable of causing injury to property or person. The wide-ranging base of that wording requires a defence of reasonable excuse.
The section is good and is reasonably balanced as it stands. But I believe the Minister is tilting it much too far into the area of unanswerable conduct. It makes it virtually impossible for a person to comply with the section as the Minister proposes to amend it. I suggest to him that he leave it as it is. If he decides not to do so, I will not press the matter; but I think it is grossly over-borne in the amended form.
Is the Deputy anxious that I put the question?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendment No. 17. Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 29 are consequential on amendment No. 18; amendment No. 28 is related. Therefore, with the agreement of the House, we will take for discussion purposes amendments Nos. 17, 18, 22, 23, 28 and 29. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 28, after "section 12" to insert the following:
"or that the operation of such aircraft does not comply with such provisions of section 16 as may be applicable to such aircraft."
The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Minister for Tourism and Transport, if he so requires for the purpose of enforcing the new section 16 to be inserted in the Bill, to direct his attention to the restriction of the use of aircraft in relation to which the owner or operator has failed to comply with the provisions of the new section 16 concerning that aircraft.
These amendments are agreeable.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 9, before section 16, to insert the following new section:
16.—(1) The Minister may by order provide that it shall not be lawful for any person to operate, or cause or permit any other person to operate, an aircraft (other than a State aircraft) in, in flight into, or out of, or over the State unless—
(a) there is in force, in accordance with subsection (2), a policy of insurance against liability arising in relation to any such operation of the aircraft, or
(b) the owner or, as the case may be, the operator of the aircraft can prove to the satisfaction of the Minister, in accordance with subsection (3), that he can provide for liability arising in relation to any such operation,
in respect of loss or damage to
(i) any person or property on the aircraft, or
(ii) any person or property on or over land or water in the State,
caused or occasioned or contributed to by the aircraft in flight, taking off or landing, or
(iii) any person or property on land or water in the State caused or occasioned or contributed to by any person, article, object or thing falling or descending from the aircraft in flight, taking off or landing.
(2) (a) A policy of insurance shall be of no effect for the purposes of subsection (1) unless and until—
(i) it complies with such conditions as the Minister may prescribe by Regulations under this section, and
(ii) there has been issued by the insurer to the insured a certificate in relation to the policy of insurance in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may prescribe by Regulations under this section.
(b) The Minister may require a copy of the certificate of insurance required under paragraph (a) to be produced to him.
(3) Where there is not in force a policy of insurance in accordance with subsection (2), the ability or otherwise of the owner or, as the case may be, the operator of the aircraft to provide for any liability specified in subsection (1) shall be determined by reference to such criteria as the Minister may prescribe by Regulations under this section.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (2) and (3), Regulations under this section may prescribe different forms or different particulars or different conditions or different criteria in relation to different classes of aircraft or in relation to the same class of aircraft in different circumstances.
(5) Regulations under this section may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as the Minister may consider necessary or desirable for giving effect to this section.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 11, subsection (2), lines 13 and 14, to delete "or reasonable casue".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
The Workers' Party are concerned about this provision which allows for the hearing of proceedings in camera. The wording of the section is “in the interest of public order or security”. We make the proposition that it is inconceivable that public order could be in any way thwarted or impinged upon, or could national security be impinged upon, by proceedings being heard openly in the context of this legislation particularly as we have been told by the Minister that nothing in this legislation shall have any bearing on military aerodromes or any facilities under the responsibility of the Minister for Defence.
On the basis that we cannot envisage a situation arising where the interest of public order or security would ever be such as to require the time honoured principle of proceedings to be heard in open court, where people are openly accused and have the opportunity in the presence of the public to be heard in their own defence, to be departed from. This is a piece of civil legislation dealing with the civil regulation of civil facilities. There should be a need for any court proceedings to be heard in camera. It is a time honoured and golden principle of our criminal and civil law that all matters be heard as far as is practicable in public and open to public access. For that reason we are opposing the section.
This section was amended after the debate in the Seanad. Section 19 empowers the court, on the application of the Minister for Tourism and Transport, to hear proceedings or part thereof in camera, where warranted by reasons of public order or security, in relation to the exercise of any power by the Minister under Part II of the Bill, that is, provisions to promote security and safety of civil aviation and other provisions in relation to aerodromes and aircraft.
This section is so worded as to enable the High Court, for example, to hear in camera any appeal, or part of an appeal, against the exercise by the Minister or any of his powers under Part II of this Bill. Deputy McCartan mentioned people's constitutional rights. There is an automatic constitutional right to appeal to the High Court against the exercise of the statutory powers and, therefore, no separate provision for such appeals is required in the Bill. With all due respects to my legal and learned friend, is this section being misread?
This amendment is not acceptable. It would preclude the court from hearing in camera proceedings, or part of proceedings — that is important — concerning the exercise of functions by the Minister under Part II of the Bill even if the court were satisfied that such a course was desirable in the interest of public order or security. Considering the amendment, the earlier debate on it, and the section in its entirety, I can only come to one conclusion and that is that the amendment is not acceptable and I hope the Deputy will understand why from my explanation.
I do not propose to amend the section; I am opposing it in its entirety because I do not believe there are conceivable circumstances where, in the interest of public order or security relating to the civil facilities of our aerodromes, proceedings should be heard behind closed doors. I ask the Minister specifically if he could give us an instance that would require such a very fundamental departure from the principle that proceedings of all civil or criminal cases be heard in public.
All judges sitting have residual authority with regard to the conduct of their proceedings in court. If an unusual circumstance arose in any case and a judge felt it was desirable that the court be cleared, he has the authority to do so. To lay it down in legislation that it is the right of a Minister, who would be the moving party in this procedure, to elect to apply to a court to close the doors to the public is not a safe principle. It is not tenable that I, or the Minister, could think of a circumstance where this would apply. I do not see where public order could require our courts to be closed. We are not a nation of security seekers. We do not have that type of worry and, in any event, the Minister has excluded all aspects of security from his aegis or authority and, in addition, has excluded all military aerodromes from the operation of this legislation. What effective security aspects has the Minister in mind? Can he instance the desire or the need for this departure from a fundamental principle?
I shall give one example. If a person or persons were charged before the courts in connection with a hijacking and if we reported the evidence given to the court, we would be writing a book on the procedure for the carrying out of a hijack for people to follow. I hope that evidence of that sort would not be made public, in order to prevent the education of others in the carrying out of hijackings.
Let me put a proposition to the Minister. Would he then advocate that all armed robberies be heard in camera simply because the dissemination of the evidence as to how one robbery took place would equip all other potential robbers with the details of how to go about it? There is a problem. I put it as a challenge. No other jurisdiction in which the principle of open courts and open hearings exists carries out this type of proceeding in camera. There might well be a different argument in other jurisdictions where military importance is given to installations. I think the section has been borrowed rather quickly from legislation prepared in other jurisdictions that have different considerations. I am not convinced by the Minister's example or by the arguments as to why we should depart from the time-honoured principle with regard to the conduct of criminal proceedings. It is all too easy to decide to make all offences a strict liability to be heard behind closed doors. Where would we go from there?
I regret the Deputy again has misunderstood the terms. He is indicating that the Minister can demand or request that such proceedings be heard in camera. The fact is that the Minister would apply to the courts but the courts finally decide the issue. The legal argument having taken place, the courts would then decide whether all or part of a case will be heard in camera. I indicated earlier, with all due respects to my learned legal friend, that it may be that the section is being misread. It states:
In any proceedings which relate to the exercise by the Minister of any power conferred on him by this Part, the Court may, on the application of the Minister, if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of public order or security so to do, order that the whole of the proceedings, or such part thereof as the Court considers appropriate, be heard otherwise than in public.
It is not the Minister who decides, it is the court at the request of the Minister, if and when the Minister makes such a request.
I should like the question to be put.
That shall be done.
Question, "That section 19 stand part of the Bill" put and declared carried.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome this section which is long overdue. It deals with situations that have arisen recently, particularly at Dublin Airport. However, I would like the Minister to explain one matter. He and the Minister for the Environment can consult and prohibit certain uses of land in the event of their deeming it to be necessary. What is meant by "for other purposes which are likely to attract a large number of birds into the area"? We all understand that tipheads attract a large number of birds. Could a circumstance be foreseen in which the Minister would issue an order prohibiting a farmer from sowing grain in his lands adjacent to an airport? Also, when silage is being cut that procedure attracts a number of birds into the area. Is there a danger that these two procedures could be prohibited under this section?
This section also received a lengthy debate in the Seanad. It is designed to fill a serious gap in the law in order to eliminate the danger to and disruption of air navigation caused by flocks of birds attracted to refuse dumps and so on located near aerodromes. Deputy Taylor-Quinn has indicated that she understands that danger. The urgent need for such a measure has been highlighted by Dublin Airport's continuing difficulties with bird strikes.
Finglas West must also be mentioned.
The section empowers the Minister for Tourism and Transport by order to prohibit or regulate the use of any land near an aerodrome or aircraft flight path serving that aerodrome for any purpose which is likely to attract large numbers of birds. Contravention of a ministerial order made under this section would be an offence punishable by substantial penalties provided for in section 27 of the Bill.
Is the Minister in a position to elaborate on what is meant by "for any other purpose which is likely to attract a large number of birds into the area"? What exactly does he envisage in inserting that phrase into the section? He did not answer my question.
Let me give the Deputy an example. In my own city we have quite an amount of bird racing, pigeon flights and that sort of thing. That would cause a danger and might be an example, as well as that of a refuse dump. The Bill specifies any other purpose, which would be tiphead or otherwise. Everybody is aware of problems in connection with bird strikes at adjacent tipheads. We have to cover any source of danger.
Does the Minister envisage making an order against a farmer planting wheat or cutting silage in fields adjacent to the flight path of aircraft in connection with any of the State airports?
The Government have no such intention. That is not at all intended.
I wish to raise a matter in relation to this section concerning the right of the Minister to restrict dumping near aerodromes. I am not sure if the Minister is aware that in Finglas, in Dunsink, there is a dump which has been in that location for ten years and perhaps more and according to Dublin County Council they intend to keep it there.
Despite the efforts of Dublin Corporation and The Workers' Party councillors on Dublin County Council, it is not intended to close it. As the crow flies, Dunsink tiphead is about two or three miles from Dublin Airport and the new runway being provided there runs in the general direction of Dunsink. Will the powers which the Minister is taking under this section enable him to ensure that Dunsink tiphead is closed?
The closing of a tiphead is the function of another Department. This section provides for a serious gap in the law in order to eliminate danger and disruption to air navigation by flocks of birds. If common sense does not prevail, I am sure the Minister for Tourism and Transport would be required to apply the law to eliminate the danger to navigation. Our function is to ensure the safety of our aircraft and that is what this section deals with.
In promoting this Bill, was the Minister aware of the existence of Dunsink tiphead and its proximity to Dublin Airport? Will the Minister undertake to have the situation investigated under the powers which he proposes to take under the Bill in relation to Dunsink tiphead being a danger to aircraft taking off and landing at Dublin Airport, particularly in relation to the new east-west runway?
I was aware of the geographical location of the Dunsink tiphead and, if I had not been, I was reminded of it in the debate in the Seanad. The Department will use the powers under this Bill and section 27 deals with the dangers and their elimination as they arise. If dangers arise from this tiphead — or any other tiphead — the legislation provides for the elimination of such dangers.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 22 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 24, to delete "25 (2), 33 (2),".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 37, after "15,", to insert "16"*.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 18, subsection (4), line 50, after "day", to insert "without the permission of an authorised officer".
This section gives powers to authorise officers to have persons removed from aerodromes. Section 31 (4) requires that a person who is ordered by an authorised officer to leave an aerodrome or part of an aerodrome or who was removed from an aerodrome or part of an aerodrome by an authorised officer shall not, on the same day, return to the aerodrome or the part of the aerodrome which he was ordered to leave or from which he was removed, as the case may be. That is an unduly restrictive section. The authorised officer may well have good grounds, for a variety of reasons, for asking a person to leave an aerodrome but it may be that that person has to leave the country on the same day. Perhaps there would not be a flight which would suit him on the following day. In this amendment, we are asking that the person may not return without the permission of an authorised officer. In other words, if he approaches the authorities at the aerodrome and gets permission from an authorised officer to return then he should be enabled to do so. It seems extraordinarily restrictive to apply the section as it stands. It is a reasonable amendment and I ask the Minister to accept it.
The effect of the amendment is to allow a person to gain admittance to an aerodrome with the permission of an authorised officer on production of proof of identity on the same day as he or she was ordered out of or removed from the aerodrome by an authorised officer for failure to produce proof of identity, for example, to have forgotten a passport, airline tickets or baggage. The amendment is acceptable provided that a comma is inserted before and after the words to be inserted.
I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment. Will he explain the significance of the comma? Is it a matter of grammatical correctness?
It is merely a technical matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 32 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 23, before section 43, to insert the following new section:
"43. —(1) The functions under the Customs-free Airport Act, 1947, which are vested in the Minister for Communications under or by virtue of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1983, are hereby transferred to the Minister and the said Customs-free Airport Act, 1947, shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
(2) The functions under the Free Ports Act, 1986, in relation to the establishment, management and control of a free port at or adjacent to an aerodrome and the licensing of persons to carry on any trade, business or manufacture within any such free port which are vested in the Minister for the Marine under or by virtue of the Communications (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order, 1987 (S.I. No. 91 of 1987), are hereby transferred to the Minister and the said Free Ports Act, 1986, shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
(3) The administration and business in connection with the performance of any functions transferred by subsection (1) or (2) are hereby transferred to the Department of Tourism and Transport.
(4) (a) References to the Minister for Communications or the Department of Communications in any statute or statutory instrument shall, in so far as it relates to any function transferred by subsection (1), be construed as references to the Minister or the Department of Tourism and Transport as the case may require.
(b) References to the Minister for the Marine or the Department of the Marine in any statute or statutory instrument shall, in so far as it relates to any function transferred by subsection (2), be construed as references to the Minister or the Department of Tourism and Transport as the case may require.
(5) In this section—
`functions' includes powers, duties and obligations and reference to the performance of a function includes, as respects powers, duties and obligations, reference to the exercise of the powers and the carrying out of the duties and obligations;
`statutory instrument' has the meaning assigned to it by the Interpretation Act, 1937.".
This amendment provides for the transfer to the Minister for Tourism and Transport of certain statutory functions such as those under the Customs-free Airport Act, 1947 which are vested in the Minister for Communications under or by virtue of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1983, and remain with that Minister despite the fact he no longer has any responsibility for the matters in question, and those under the Free Ports Act, 1986, which were transferred to the Minister for the Marine under or by virtue of the Communications (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order, 1987, in relation to the establishment etc. of any free port at or adjacent to any aerodrome in the State. This transfer was inadvertently overlooked in the making of the statutory instruments which transferred ministerial functions and so on after the change of Government in March 1987 and in the interests of proper administration should be effected as soon as possible.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 24, before section 45, to insert the following new section:
45. —Section 2 of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1946 (which relates to the application of the Act) is hereby amended by—
(a) the insertion in paragraph (b) after `members,' of `or', and
(b) the insertion after paragraph (b) of the following paragraph:
`(c) an agreement relating to aircraft or spare parts for aircraft,'.".
This amendment involving the insertion of a new section in the Bill is designed to remove an unnecessary cost penalty on Irish firms, notably Aer Lingus and Guinness Peat Aviation, which lease aircraft or aircraft spare parts to or from foreign firms. This amendment therefore meets representations made by such Irish firms over the years.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 45 and 46 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 25, before section 47, to insert the following new section:
47.—The Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1975, is hereby amended by—
(a) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1) of section 3:
`(1) A persons shall be guilty of an offence if anywhere he unlawfully and intentionally—
(a) commits on board an aircraft in flight any act of violence which is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft,
(b) destroys an aircraft in service or so damages it as to render it incapable of flight or to endanger its safety in flight,
(c) places or causes to be placed on an aircraft in service any device or substance which is likely to destroy the aircraft or so damage it as to render it incapable of flight or to endanger its safety in flight,
(d) destroys, damages or interferes with the operation of any air navigation facility if such act is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight,
(e) communicates any information which he knows to be false where the communication of the information endangers, or is likely to endanger, the safety of an aircraft in flight,
(f) (i) performs an act of violence against a person
(I) at an aerodrome in the State (other than an aerodrome under the control of the Minister for Defence), or
(II) at an aerodrome outside the State serving international civil aviation,
which causes or is likely to cause serious injury or death, or
(ii) destroys or seriously damages the facilities or disrupts the services of any aerodrome referred to in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph (other than an aerodrome under the control of the Minister for Defence) or destroy or seriously damages any aircraft not in service located on that aerodrome,
if such an act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at that aerodrome.',
and
(b) the substitution of the following section for section 5:
5. (1) Any person arrested under section 4 (1) of this Act shall—
(a) if the aircraft concerned is registered in a state to which Part II of the Act of 1965 applies, or if the aerodrome concerned is in a state to which that Part of that Act applies, and (in the case of a citizen of Ireland) the extradition of the person is not prohibited by section 14 of that Act, be deemed to have been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under section 27 of that Act, and
(b) if the aircraft concerned is registered in a place to which Part III of that Act applies, or if the aerodrome concerned is in a place to which that Part of that Act applies, be deemed to have been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under section 49 of that Act.
(2) Section 15 of the Act of 1965 shall not apply in relation to the extradition of a person to whom subsection (1) of this section applies.'.
The purpose of this amendment which inserts a new section 47 into the Bill is to give effect to the 1988 Montreal Protocol to the 1971 Montreal Convention. The protocol makes it an offence for anyone to endanger safety at aerodromes serving international civil aviation by carrying out internal acts of violence against persons or facilities at such aerodromes. Complicity in the commission of such offences is also an offence. This new section extends the provisions of sections 3 and 5 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1975, which have effect to the 1971 Montreal Convention.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 47 and 48 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 28 in the name of the Minister — this amendment was discussed with amendment No. 17.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 47, in the third column, to delete the first paragraph and to substitute the following paragraph:
"In section 2 (1) — the definition of the expression `the Paris Convention'; the definition of the expression `the Rome Convention'; the definition of the expression `the Company'; the definition of the expression `the subsidiary company'; the definition of the word `prescribed' where that defination first appears; the words `(except in Part II of this Act)' in the definition of the word `prescribed' where that definition last appears.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 in the name of the Minister — this amendment was also discussed with amendment No. 17.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 47, to delete the fifth and sixth entries in the third column and to substitute the following:
"Chapters II and III of Part IV.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 48, in the third column between "Section 16." and "Section 3." to insert "Section 28.".
Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 4, to delete lines 12 to 16 and substitute the following:
"WARSAW CONVENTION, THE CHICAGO CONVENTION AND THE MONTREAL CONVENTION; TO AMEND THE HIRE-PURCHASE ACT, 1946; TO AMEND THE CUSTOMS-FREE AIRPORT ACTS, 1947 AND 1958; TO AMEND THE FREE PORTS ACT, 1986; AND TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE MATTERS AFORESAID.".
This amendment to the Long Title is required to cover three additional items for which provision is being made in the Bill and which were not covered by the original Long Title. The first item is the implementation of the 1988 Montreal Protocol to the 1971 Montreal Convention; the second item is an amendment to the Hire Purchase Act, 1946, so as to exclude the leasing of aircraft or aircraft spare parts from the scope of that Act; and the third item is an amendment to the Free Ports Act, 1986, so as to transfer to the Minister for Tourism and Transport functions at present vested in the Minister for the Marine in relation to the establishment etc. of any free port at or adjacent to any aerodrome in the State.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Since there are no amendments on Report Stage we will now proceed to the Fifth Stage of this Bill.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question proposed: `That the Bill do now pass".
On a point of order, is there going to be no Report Stage to this Bill? Earlier today the Minister gave an undertaking to reply to some of my queries on Report Stage.
I indicated to Deputy O'Malley this morning that I would seek information for him and try to have it, if possible, before Report Stage. I now learn it was not possible to get that information right away. I might make this offer to Deputy O'Malley, that he supply me with the details he read out in the course of Committee Stage and I will undertake to furnish him with the information he requires with regard to licensing in another Department.
I regret that the Minister is not in a position to give me the answers I sought. Apart from whether the Department of Communications are entitled to issue licences, there was what I considered to be the other more important matter of the agency, Eolas, confirming that Celtic Helicopters were unrestricted and licensed to operate on off-shore services. A month after the date on which Eolas were given that information the Minister for Tourism and Transport stated specifically, replying to a question, that Celtic Helicopters were not so licensed and that the restrictions on them still applied. There is an obvious contradiction there which should be cleared up in the public interest. I regret that the Minister is not in a position to clarify that matter at present although I note he will pursue it.
The time scale available did not permit of my obtaining all the information required. I have already given the Deputy an undertaking that I will have that matter clarified for him.
I should like to record my appreciation to the House for its prompt endorsement of this important Bill and the terms of the 1988 Montreal Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation throughout the world. The enactment of this Bill will clear the way for Ireland to be among the first states to ratify that Protocol. Ireland co-sponsored the 1986 resolution of the International Civil Aviation Organisation which led to the preparation and settlement of the 1988 Protocol. Its early ratification by Ireland should encourage all other states to ratify it without delay, all in the interests of security of international civil aviation. Ireland, therefore, will be urging the widest possible application of that Protocol.
As the House is aware, Irish civil aviation has developed remarkably over the past year or so as a result of the dynamic policies of the Government and my Department. The industry is now poised for even more significant growth with the commitment of further substantial public moneys to aviation infrastructures. The greater responsiveness of airlines to customer needs, quality, reliability and security of air services are all of paramount importance. All persons involved in the industry have a part to play in the achievement of the requisite high standards on all of those counts. The Bill, when enacted, will empower the Minister for Tourism and Transport to vigorously pursue those issues vital to all aspects of Irish civil aviation.
Question put and agreed to.
By virtue of Article 22.2 of the Constitution this Bill is considered as one initiated in the Dáil to be sent to the Seanad.