Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Oct 1993

Vol. 434 No. 4

Irish Aviation Authority Bill, 1993: Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, lines 1 and 2, to delete "(being the register established under section 11 of the Act of 1946)" and substitute "established under the act of 1946".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, line 27, to delete "Eurocontrol".

This is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, line 35, to delete "1990" and substitute "1993".

This is a technical amendment to ensure that the citation of the Defence Act, 1993, is included.

Amendment agreed to.

(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 3a:

In page 11, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(2) Nothing in this Act or any order or other instrument made thereunder, shall prejudice or affect the functions of the Irish meteorological service, as these stood at the time of its enactment.".

I tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage. The Minister, Deputy O'Malley, and others who were members of that committee will recall we had a very good and long discussion on Committee Stage and that many of the difficulties we had with the Bill were ironed out on that occasion. The Minister was very forthcoming in facilitating us about any worries we expressed.

I now resubmit this amendment on Report Stage because despite, assurances from the Minister on Committee Stage, which he also gave to representatives of the Irish Meteorological Service, there is still great unease in the met service about the implications of this Bill. The amendment proposes that nothing in this Bill or in any Order or other instrument under the Bill when enacted will prejudice or affect the functions of the Irish Meteorological Service as they stood at the time of its enactment. When I moved this before, the Minister said that such an amendment was superfluous because it was not his intention to take any steps that would affect the functions of the Irish Meteorological Service. He told us also on Committee Stage that he had met members of the staff association, which represents the officers of that service, and had given them similar assurances which they had accepted. Unfortunately, things have since changed. Air Traffic Control at Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports have purchased meteorological equipment, which has no function other than use for meteorological purposes. They have purchased barometric equipment made in Finland to measure pressure at airports but this work has been carried out since 1937 by the Irish Meteorological Service. It must be more than a coincidence that as this Bill proceeds through Committee to Report Stage that Air Traffic Control at Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports have invested in equipment which they never needed previously and whose only function is to give pressure readings for landings and takeoffs, a service which was always provided by the Irish Meteorological Service.

It seems that the assurances given by the Minister are no longer extant and that the assurances given to the staff association involved are not worth very much. It is very unfair that Members of this House should have been given solemn assurances, written into the record, and a staff association given similar guarantees but, as soon as Committee Stage is over, another agency, the ATC, which will be involved with the Irish Aviation Authority, will take steps to move into the professional area of another service.

I am asking the Minister to put the issue beyond doubt and, rather than asking people who feel let down by him to rely on his assurances, to accept my amendment and put it into the text of the Bill so that there is no possibility of functions which have been traditionally carried out by the met service being carried out by ATC.

This is one of their profitable functions. I understand the met service costs about £10 million but they recover approximately £4 million by providing this service at airports. Other services provided by the Irish Meteorological Service cannot show a profit. In any country the meteorological service must provide an early warning system to alert the public about storms and bad weather. They must provide a service at harvest time to farmers, to those who want to take a weekend break or to visiting tourists. It seems to be an extraordinarily bad service if what is profitable is removed from its remit while at the same time it will continue to provide a full meteorological service in the lost making areas which are still part of its mandate. I am very surprised that this has happened and I appeal to the Minister to allay the fears of the workers in the Irish Meteorological Service by accepting this amendment and putting the issue beyond doubt.

Even if it is unnecessary that the Bill be amended in this way, acceptance of the amendment would do no harm as it represents the Minister's intent. Because of the purchaase of barometric equipment by Air Traffic Control at three of our airports, those who serve in the met service no longer believe the Minister's assurances. The Minister will have to go further and amend the Bill.

I listened with interest to Deputy Noonan and, as he stated, we debated this matter at great length on Committee Stage. We are all moved by the concern of the Meteorological Service about such barometers and I have investigated the matter in some detail.

On the question of barometers, I must put the technical position in context. Every aircraft must have an altimeter which tells the pilot the height at which he or she is flying. Altimeters are set on barometric pressure which varies constantly with the weather. It is the responsibility of the Meteorological Service to inform air traffic control of the barometric pressure and air traffic controllers then pass the information to pilots. There were industrial relations problems in the Meteorological Service last year during which time officials of the service did not supply barometric pressure readings to air traffic control. Failure to supply barometric pressure readings for aircraft in flight is a highly dangerous and irresponsible action. In the circumstances ANSO devised a stopgap measure whereby Aer Lingis pilots sat on aircraft in Dublin Airport and advised air traffic controllers of the values on the aircraft barometer. To avoid a recurrence of that action, ANSO purchased barometers which can be used if the Meteorological Service cannot, or refuses to, supply such essential barometric readings.

Under the Chicago Convention each state undertakes, as far as practicable, to provide meteorological services and other air navigation facilities. Annex III to that convention sets out the State's obligation in respect of meteorological services. Under the convention each State must designate the meteorological authority which will provide meteorological services for international air navigation. In Ireland that authority is the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and authority is exercised on his behalf by the Irish Meteorological Service. The Irish Aviation Authority Bill excludes the authority from responsibility from meteorological services and places such responsibility with the Minister.

The Aviation Authority will transmit meteorological service information to aircraft and will require such information to carry out its own air traffic control responsibilities. However, the Irish Aviation Authority cannot operate an independent meteorological service. Neither can it buy in such services from abroad. If it tries to do so the Minister has the power to prevent this and I have no doubt he would do so. While I appreciate the concerns of those employed in the meteorological service, this Bill focuses on the authority, what it will be, what it will do, the powers it will have and the general framework of ministerial authority under which it will operate.

In the light of the foregoing, the proposed amendment is a redundant provision that would confuse rather than clarify the position. This matter has been discussed with the Attorney General and I have taken the best advice possible. I am satisfied with the way the Bill is framed. The fact that Annex III of the Chicago Convention is not part of the schedule to this Bill means that the Irish Meteorological Service will remain under the control of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. Under the provisions of the Bill the Minister will have the power to direct the Irish Aviation Authority at any time to carry out specific functions or to avail of specific services. By placing the responsibility with the Minister, the power rests with him to protect the interests of the Irish Meteorological Service, Irish and international passengers travelling to and from this country and the taxpayer who, at the end of the day, funds the meteorological service and, initially, the Irish Aviation Authority.

I acknowledge Deputy Noonan's interest in this matter, but I have had exhaustive discussions and I am satisfied this is the proper procedure. I am satisfied that the provisions of this Bill will protect the Irish Meteorological Service to a greater extent by the exclusion of this amendment.

I will do something uncharacteristic on this occasion and support Deputy Noonan on this matter. I met a deputation from the Irish Meteorological Service at Shannon Airport and assured them that their fears were groundless because of the Minister's reply on Committee Stage. I told them that there was no necessity for them to meet me again in regard to the matter. I raised the issue with my parliamentary party and spoke to the Tánaiste and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, on the matter. When I met the deputation from the meteorological service at Shannon Airport I told them that there was no need to be concerned because I was satisfied the Minister would take on board the comments made on Committee Stage. I met another deputation yesterday.

Deputy Noonan has not exaggerated workers' concerns in this matter. Those are not fledgling workers, but workers who have given a long service to the Irish Meteorological Service. They comprise people from all grades in the service and they would not seek a meeting with me to discuss immature or unreasonable concerns. They are responsible and respectable people and are very concerned about this matter. The point made by Deputy Noonan reflects the concerns of those people. I have been put in an awkward position because I told them their fears were groundless following the Committee Stage debate. I did not wish to mislead them, but I believed I was reflecting the consensus expressed on Committee Stage. I believed the Minister understood the concerns expressed.

Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to reflect on what is contained in Deputy Noonan's amendment because those concerns have not been expressed for emotional purposes or to indulge in histrionics. People have worked in the meteorological service for many years. They believe their position is threatened by the provisions of this Bill. I am sure that was not the intention of the Minister or his colleagues in framing the legislation. The Minister must have regard for people who have given a loyal service to the State and contributed their intelligence and skills to the meteorological service. We should have regard for those who have made a substantial contribution to our society and economy. I do not always agree with Deputy Noonan, but what he said reflects the feelings of the deputation I met yesterday.

(Limerick East): I thank Deputy Kemmy for his support on this matter. We all accepted the assurances of the Minister on Committee Stage and I communicated those assurances to the delegation I met from the meteorological service, many of whom are my constituents. Those people now feel let down because the Minister's assurances no longer stand. At Shannon, Cork and Dublin Airports air traffic control officers have purchased barometric equipment to give pressure readings, an essential service provided at present by the meteorological service at airports and a service which is absolutely necessary for the safe landing and take-off of aircraft.

The Minister assured us on Committee Stage that none of the professional functions carried out by officers of the meteorological service would be affected by the introduction of this Bill. He expects us to believe now that it is merely a coincidence — a downstream effect — of an industrial dispute last year which resulted in air traffic controllers purchasing equipment to conduct pressure readings, the main reason for which meteorological officers are employed at airports in the first place. I note the Minister's official is shaking his head. We all realise that pilots will wish to know weather forecasts before take off, but that service does not have to be provided at Shannon. Such a service can be provided by fax from Dublin. They can locate in Dublin and give weather projections for the North Atlantic as aircraft take off. The service which requires them to be on the spot is pressure readings at airports. There are 31 people who provide a service in Shannon airport and when this function is removed they will not be needed in Shannon; they could be located in Limerick, Dublin or other cities and provide other services for civil aviation. It is not good enough on Report Stage to say this is nothing more than a coincidence. The Minister changed his explanation. He assured us on Committee Stage that the functions carried out by the meteorological service would continue to be carried out by it. He now says that matters such as the safety of aircrafts are vested in the Minister, not in the new Aviation Authority, and that he may decide as he sees fit to ask air traffic control to carry out pressure readings.

The Minister said that as a safety net in times of an industrial dispute, functions carried out by the meteorological service traditionally since 1937 may in future be carried out by officers at air traffic control through the use of the barometric equipment they recently purchased. On Committee Stage the Minister said there was no possibility of functions being transferred but now he has changed his position and said that in certain circumstances functions can be transferred at the discretion of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. That is not the assurance he gave the House on Committee Stage. I am disappointed we were misled. We co-operated with the Minister on Committee Stage and relayed his assurances to the people we represent but today he gave an equally strong assurance, in different terms, that the Minister has the power to transfer functions but will not exercise it. The barometric equipment which reads pressure at the airports must be individually calibrated for each airport. It is not a case of buying the box and plugging it in and if the equipment in Shannon breaks down one can send to Dublin or Finland for equipment. The Minister's explanation does not provide the fail safe mechanism he purports it gives. If the equipment is lying idle for years, is only used in the case of an industrial dispute in the meteorological service and does not function, it is not a case of replacing it with other equipment, it must be calibrated again. I understand the only people who can calibrate equipment are officers of the meteorological service. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. He says it is a redundant amendment which adds nothing to the Bill. I appeal to the Minister to give the assurance requestd by the people in the meteorological service because intentionally or not his explanation has misled them.

Shall I put the Question?

I would like to respond if I may.

On Report Stage Members may speak only once with the exception of the speaker who tabled the amendment. The Minister may make a brief observation but the Chair cannot be guilty of creating a precedent at this important time.

It would never be my intention to mislead a committee, a Member or the Houses of the Oireachtas. I never intended to do so nor did I do so. This equipment was purchased since Committee Stage to protect the integrity of our air services in the event of our not being able to provide the protection that could be provided by the meteorological service. The interests of the service are protected by the Minister being responsible for the functions and I give that guarantee.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 53.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies E. Kenny and J. Higgins; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 11, to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute the following:

"(4) Before making an order or regulation, or giving a direction (other than a direction to the company),".

This is a drafting amendment. The intention is to make the subsection clearer and simpler; it does not change the sense of the section in any way.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following:

"(7) Before making an order under section 15 or 58 (2) or an order amending or revoking such an order, the Minister shall cause a draft of the order to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made unless a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".

Section 5 of the Bill sets the framework within which orders and regulations may be made by the Minister and the company. Originally it was intended that all orders made by the Minister and the company would be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and would come into effect unless they were annulled. On Committee Stage various Deputies expressed concern that orders, particularly those requiring the exercise of political judgment, should be subject to active rather than passive parliamentary scrutiny. They put the case that such orders should require an affirmative resolution of each House of the Oireachtas. I have carefully considered the views put forward and I agree there are circumstances in which it would be proper to seek the specific approval of the Oireachtas. If it is intended to give the company new powers or responsibilities, that should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The amendment which I have proposed provides that when the Minister makes an order conferring additional functions on the Authority or adding to the number of annexes to the Chicago Convention for which the Authority has responsibility, that order must be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Orders for either of these purposes will represent substantial change and expression in the remit we are giving to the Irish Aviation Authority.

Other orders made by the Minister and the Authority under this Bill will be of a technical and administrative nature and do not need to be debated by the Oireachtas. Such orders cover highly technical matters such as the air-worthiness of aircraft. It is not intended that these technical orders should be debated or require affirmative action by the Oireachtas. Thus these technical orders will be laid before each House and will have effect unless they are annulled within 21 sitting days.

We must look at the bigger picture. A major development for the Authority would be if it were to be assigned some new functions or given responsibility for annexes to the Chicago Convention which are not listed in the Schedule to the Bill. These are substantial changes and ones I believe should be subject to affirmation by the Oireachtas. I am, accordingly, putting forward this amendment to meet the requests made on Committee Stage by various Deputies.

I welcome this amendment. The Minister of State is adopting the right approach. If we had more provisions of this kind it would be an improvement. Some significant orders could be made under this Bill.

Unfortunately, we did not get the amendments until this morning and for most of the day I have been otherwise engaged. Therefore I have not had an opportunity to study them. Will the Minister of State briefly outline again the orders that are covered under sections 15 and 58? Perhaps it should not be confined to sections 15 and 58 only; there may be other significant orders. Perhaps it is too late to consider it now but it could be considered in the Seanad.

If in the future the Authority proposes to make a major change in policy as distinct from a technical order relating to the air-worthiness of aircraft or if it is proposed to give the Authority responsibility for an annex to the Chicago Convention which does not appear in the Schedule to this Bill, the Minister will be obliged to table a motion which will have to be passed by both Houses.

What is the reason all annexes to the Chicago Convention are not included in the Schedule to the Bill?

It would be prudent to leave responsibility for certain annexes to the Chicago Convention with various Ministers. For example, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communication will retain responsibility for the Meteorological Service. If Annex III were to be included we would hand the responsibility to the Authority.

Annex IX — facilitation — has also been left out. This annex sets out the standards and procedures that states have agreed to apply in authorising the entry and departure of aircraft from their territory and dealing with passengers, air baggage and cargo. These procedures cover such matters as aircraft documents, passports and customs checks and health requirements. We feel this is a matter for the State rather than the Authority.

In regard to Annex XII — search and rescue — the Minister will retain responsibility for the provision of search and rescue services. These services involve co-ordinated action by a number of Government Departments, the Garda, Defence Forces, local authorities and health services and also require liaison with the relevant services in neighbouring countries. The operation of air traffic control for search and rescue operations will be assigned to the Irish Aviation Authority but responsibility for the annex as a whole will remain with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.

Annex XIII — aircraft accident investigations — has also been left out. Since the services provided by the Aviation Authority might be implicated in an accident it would be entirely inappropriate for the Authority to have responsibility for this annex. The Minister may use his own staff to carry out an investigation or may appoint an indepedent outside organisation, possibly from abroad, to carry out the investigation. He might, if he considered it appropriate, nominate the Authority to carry out the investigation on his behalf but that would purely be a matter for the Minister. The Bill empowers the Authority to investigate incidents which the Minister is not investigating. This is necessary for it to carry out its functions of regulating aviation safety.

Annex XVII — security — has also been left out. Securing civil aviation against unlawful interference is a matter for Government and will therefore remain with the Minister. It would not be appropriate to give the Authority this policy responsibility. By leaving these annexes out of the Bill responsibility will rest with the State.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 22, line 48, to delete "officer" and substitute "member of the staff".

This is a drafting amendment which makes the reference consistent with other references to members of the staff of the Authority.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 13, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(3) The Headquarters of the company shall be located in such place where the majority of its staff are situate.".

My much heralded retirement which was due to begin today has not begun as yet; it seems I have drawn the short straw.

This amendment is similar but not the same as the one I moved on Committee Stage. It is slightly different. That amendment was negatived on Committee Stage and I wanted the opportunity to move it again. I move it in different circumstances because if Members of the House read the record of the debate that took place on Committee Stage they will see that I was opposed by a number of Deputies, including Deputy Flaherty, who said that as I was the leader of a national party I was not entitled to move an amendment of that kind. Happily, that impediment has been moved out of Deputy Flaherty's way in the meantime.

Deputy Kemmy was very upset and said that little green apples would grow again, that the wheel would turn full circle. I hope Deputy Kemmy will support this amendment as he voted against the amendment I tabled on Committee Stage. Twenty minutes ago, speaking eloquently in favour of Deputy Noonan's amendment, he said he agreed with it without reservations. A vote was duly called. I noted that the last Member going through the "Níl" lobby was my old friend Deputy Kemmy. How will he vote on this issue.

The arguments advanced now are the same as those voiced on Committee Stage. I do not think that I, or any Member, need repeat them. The situation in Shannon Airport is causing great concern. It caused great concern in mid-July when the Committee Stage was being taken. Unfortunately, the position has deteriorated further and people are worried as a result of the decisions by the Government. Within the past 24 hours the industry that received the largest investment ever, more than $1,000 million, let go more than 25 per cent of its staff who worked within a few miles of Shannon Airport. The longest established industrial company in Shannon, De Beers, established in 1959 and manufacturing since 1960, made many of its staff redundant. Translift has been forced to curtail its activities through Shannon due to its failure to get rights into other airports even though neither Aer Lingus or any other Irish airline is flying into those airports or even into those countries. Aeroflot is in active negotiation with the British Government, and the British Aviation Authority, with a view to transferring some of its flights across the Atlantic from Shannon to Prestwick which, as we know, has not been a busy airport in recent years. That is a very frightening spectacle for the people of Shannon.

The arguments I advanced others on Committee Stage are even more valid in the light of the events that have since taken place in Shannon. It is ominous that Aughinish Alumina, in which more than $1 billion was invested should have had to reduce its workforce. De Beers is regarded as one of the strongest companies in the world and I had hoped, now that its parent companies in South Africa are in a better position to trade worldwide, that it would have been able to avoid taking the action it did.

The Minister of State was good enough to give us details of the number of people who will be affected by this Bill. The majority of them are in County Clare, at Shannon Airport and at Ballygireen which is only a couple of miles from the airport. Most of the others are in Dublin with a small number in Cork city and west Cork.

I have never apologised for supporting the decentralisation programmes. They have been implemented to a limited extent and that has been a cause of great regret to me. Frequently, the implementation of the programmes has been much slower than one would have hoped. In Limerick, for example, the decentralisation of a section of the Revenue Commissioners was to be completed in 1989. It was, in fact, only completed in the past couple of months. There has been limited decentralisation to various part of the country. However, with the exception of Limerick and one or two other cities it usually involved about 100 officials not of the most senior rank.

We are one of the most if not the most centralised country in Europe. In the United Kingdom and France entire Departments have been decentralised away from the capital. In Newcastle-on-Tyne alone there are between 10,000 and 15,000 officials of one Department. A huge number of officials from more than one Department are based in Cardiff. Even institutions like the Bank of England have decentralised many of their functions to relatively small cities and towns in the UK. That is regarded as the norm and nobody sees anything wrong with it, and when the decision is taken it is usually implemented reasonably quickly.

However, in Ireland we have a fixation about Dublin. We have only to look around to see that Dublin is slowly choking to death. Why we should seek to continue to concentrate more and more people into one city — more than 30 per cent of the population live in the Dublin area — I do not know.

Shannon Airport, and the Shannon region, are in a very vulnerable situation. There is great concern and a lack of confidence there. The Government should make some gesture to show it has a commitment to that area. The day after the news about Aughinish Alumina broke, and one month after we heard about De Beers, would be a suitable time to make such a gesture. I am not suggesting — this is supposed to be the greatest horror of all — that senior civil servants in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications should go to Shannon or the Shannon region. Those who advise the Minister and who hold senior positions will have to remain in Dublin as was the case in other decentralisation programmes. However, those on the administrative and executive side could be transferred.

Of the new State bodies set up here over the years, and there were scores of them, only three — they are by no means the most important — have their headquarters outside the city of Dublin. That is wrong and it is not replicated in any other country that I am aware of. We should avail of the opportunity presented by this Bill to try to ensure that the headquarters of a semi-State body is transferred outside of Dublin.

The west of Ireland has always had to face problems. The one ray of hope, the one light shining in the darkness that was successful over a long period was Shannon Airport which is at a turning point. Some would say it has gone beyond that as a result of the Government decision on last June or July which superseded the Government announcement of last October. It is a very serious matter and people are deeply concerned. This is an opportunity for the Government and the Dáil to give some reassurance to those who are deeply worried. There is no technical or other reason that this amendment cannot be accepted. There are not many people involved. Relatively few people would be transferred but at least there would be some guarantee of continuity for those already working there and for the Clare area. There are more than 300 people there at present. On Committee Stage we discussed the nature of the work carried out by these people, which previously had to be done in situ but does not always have to be done in situ now due to advances in telecommunications and so on.

There is great fear that many people will be transferred. Acceptance of this amendment, is the way to prevent that. I ask the Minister of State who represents a west of Ireland constituency to realise the concern of people on the western seaboard. This is a very simple way of giving some reassurance to the people who are so deeply worried. It is especially necessary and appropriate in view of two serious developments in regard to industrial employment, one in the oldest factory in Shannon which has been manufacturing for 33 years and is situated a couple of hundred yards from the main runway and the other only two or three miles across the river from the airport at Aughinish. I hope the Labour Party on this occasion, instead of just making speeches in favour of an amendment such as this, will vote for the amendment and will intercede with the Minister of State to ensure that it is carried.

I could make a speech that would be a great deal more embarrassing for people than anything I have said, but I decline to do so in the hope that my words will be acted upon. It is the least the Government and the House owe the people who are very distressed today, not because some world economic conditions went against them but because the Government made a particular decision.

I did not have the benefit of participating on Committee Stage of this Bill. I am not certain as to the numbers involved but my understanding is that in the region of 100 employees will be transferred from the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications to the Aviation Authority.

I take this opportunity of wishing Deputy O'Malley well following his retirement as Leader of the Progressive Democrats. I respect the fact that he is making a pitch for his constituency and the Shannon region. In the past when people moved from the Civil Service to State companies such as An Post and Telecom Éireann the minimum disruption to the existing staff was ensured.

I do not wish the impression to be given that Dublin is booming. The unemployment rate in Dublin is extremely high. Even in a so-called wealthy part of Dublin, in my constituency in Dún Laoghaire there are 8,000 people on the live register. There is a very serious unemployment problem in the Dublin region.

I wish to make representations on behalf of the staff who are deeply concerned that they may be forced to leave Dublin, people with commitments in terms of educating their children, mortgages and so on. These people joined the Civil Service, were involved in the Department and are now co-operating with the setting up of this Authority. I ask the Minister to take into account that some people may not wish to move from Dublin. If there is to be movement it should be on a voluntary basis. I am not completely au fait with the new structure but there are a number of people currently in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications who are deeply concerned that they may be forced to move from Dublin and it is only right and proper that their fears should be expressed. If these people are prepared to move on a voluntary basis so be it, but they should not be forced to do so. The Minister may argue that people's rights will be protected in the movement from the Civil Service to the new Authority, but to have to make such a move would be a culture shock.

The state of the economy in Dublin is not rosy. Other regions may experience difficulties but it is not reasonable to say that more will be done to assist other regions at the further expense of the Dublin region. Considering the serious unemployment problem in Dublin, we cannot afford to lose employment to different regions. Perhaps the impression has been given to the Minister that everything is rosy in Dublin but that is not so.

I support Deputy O'Malley who has elaborated very forcefully the strong and cogent reasons that the new Authority should be established in the Shannon area. The first reason is based on the manpower resources already in the aviation industry in the area. In addition the Shannon area has suffered many significant blows in recent times and rumour and innuendo are still rife in the area. I do not wish to repeat the points elaborated by Deputy O'Malley. He mentioned the concern in relation to Translift and Aeroflot. A task force was established in Shannon with the objective of seeking extra business for the area. Many people found it a contradiction that Shannon Development, whose objective it was to market Shannon Airport, was asked to market another airport in Farranfore. While we do not begrudge the activity of regional airports it may not be possible to serve two masters.

As Deputy O'Malley said, the Shannon area suffered a great blow in industrial terms in recent times and that position was reinforced yesterday with the announcement of lay-offs at Aughinish Alumina in my constituency of west Limerick. As a person who worked in the construction of Aughinish I saw tremendous momentum at that time which gave a new lease of life to the area. It helped many people financially and created much employment in the area. Regrettably, changes on the international scene, particularly in Russia and Eastern Europe, have resulted in a downturn in business at Aughinish Alumina. It is unfortunate that this has led to 140 job losses. The company wants to save the remaining 400 jobs and knows it will have to reduce the cost of alumina. I compliment the company on its initiative in providing £500,000 in seed capital for redundant workers who may wish to set up businesses. This initiative, in conjunction with the county enterprise boards, will probably give many people the necessary kick-start to set up their own industries.

There is a mood of depression and gloom in the mid-west region at present. Regardless of the Department involved, regionalisation of services can give rise to concern and resistance. Departments have always been sympathetic to their employees and I hope that the headquarters of the Irish Aviation Authority will be located in Shannon. This would be a major boost to the area. I support this amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

I am surprised that this matter has been raised on Report Stage — I thought it has been debated fully on Committee Stage. The Air Navigation Services Office is already highly decentralised with more than 80 per cent of its staff located outside Dublin city. The general Shannon Airport region is, and will continue to be, our main base of operations for the control of the upper air space and our North Atlantic area. As I said in the House on a number of occasions, the new Authority intends to grasp the commercial opportunities already arising in the training and consultancy areas. Moreover, we foresee that it will use the highly sophisticated air traffic control centre in Shannon as the focal point around which new development and expansion will take place.

All that being said, it would be inappropriate, as a matter of principle, to provide in legislation for the location of the headquarters or any part of the organisation in any particular area.

(Limerick East): We have already heard the Minister's views on this point. The commitments he gave in other areas on Committee Stage are not being fulfilled and this does not inspire confidence about the acceptance of this amendment. As the Minister is fully aware, there is a concept known as geographic inertia which, in simple terms, means that when the conditions which led to the establishment of a particular industry or service in a region change there is always a time lapse between the transfer of the service or industry to a new area even though the conditions no longer exist in the first area. For example, in the United States most cotton manufacture was in the north east and the general Boston area even though no cotton was grown within 1,000 miles of the area. That remained the case right up to modern times.

I make that point because a similar example arises in the case of Shannon area which feels under siege at present as a result of adverse announcements; for example, GPA has been taken over by General Electric, with one third of the staff made redundant, the other flagship of the airport, De Beers — the highest payer in the region — is suffering major redundancies and the Aughinish Alumina plant in the estuary is also suffering redundancies. The people from that area are afraid they will no longer have political clout at the Cabinet table. There has been a tradition in the region that a senior Minister represented the region at Cabinet. This happened when Deputy O'Malley, I and some of the Minister's Fianna Fáil colleagues were in Government. The mid-west region is now without political clout — it is not represented by anybody at the Cabinet table. Even though there were redundancies in the past there was always enough clout at the Cabinet table to ensure that a replacement industry was put into the area. This is not happening any more — it is all one way traffic and bad news.

This brings me back to my point about geographic inertia. The Minister referred to the North Atlantic area and control of the upper air space. When Shannon was the first landfall for flights crossing the Atlantic it was geographically necessary to place air traffic control in Shannon. This was not necessary simply for the aircraft flying into and out of Shannon; it was, as the Minister explained on a number of occasions on Committee Stage, to hand over control for the aircraft flying into our airspace to European control. That happened on the Shannon-Prestwick line — I think the acronym was "Shanwick". This is no longer the case, people based in Dublin, Prestwick or Liverpool could easily carry out this task. Therefore, the geographic necessity of having the facilities in Shannon for the general activity carried out — passing over control for aircraft flying into our space to European control — no longer applies. We are afraid that the Minister or one of his successors will yield to pressure and that, systematically and slowly over the years, staff will be transferred from the outposts, where most of them are now located, to the headquarters in Dublin.

The Minister said he would not name the location of the headquarters in the Bill. That is code for saying that everyone knows the headquarters will be in Dublin and that, therefore, one does not need to write it into the Bill. The only time one names the location of the headquarters in a Bill is when one is trying to move it out of Dublin.

That has never been done.

(Limerick East): Of course, it has not been done. As a countryman representing a constituency west of the Shannon it is about time the Minister looked at the precedents and decided to break with them. When one does not name the location of the headquarters in a Bill it automatically follows it will be Dublin.

I do not mind a small group of experts in the Irish Aviation Authority having a headquarters in Dublin where their expertise can be used to advise the Minister and where they can act as a kind of management group for the country. However, because there is no geographic necessity to base services in the regions except to control flights in and out of the airport, which is a very small modicum of the activity of air traffic control, I am afraid that the push will be towards Dublin in a few years. We are a very centralised country; our public service has a centralised mentality; it is very difficult to get anyone above middle management grade in the Civil Service to move out of Dublin. We have seen evidence of this decentralisation programmes in the past where recruitment within a Department had to be extended to the entire public service and where, in the final analysis, promotion had to be offered before people would move to regional locations. This was because of the social advantages of living in Dublin — the easy access to third level education and the different living standards. Regardless of how black a picture one paints of Dublin, when it comes to the crunch by and large people in the public service want to stay in it. Those public servants who willingly relocate to the country are usually single and, quite frequently, single women at the lower levels of the Civil Service.

We are afraid the people based in our area will be brought back to Dublin over a period of time, that there will be no major announcement by the Minister that ten staff will be moved back to Dublin the first year, 20 the next year and 30 the year after. People are afraid there will only be a small holding operation in Shannon Airport and that the main operation will be centralised in Dublin. The Minister can banish that fear by accepting Deputy O'Malley's amendment.

I have to express my profound disappointment at the attitude of the Minister of State and the Government. The Minister of State stood up and read in a dismissive manner a few lines of script handed to him which said that the amendment could not be accepted and we could take it or leave it. He did not attempt to make any argument for not accepting the amendment or contradict any argument in support of this amendment by Deputy Finucane or me. It is very regrettable that the Minister should have adopted this attitude and that the Government should arrogantly say: "We do not care whether you are right or wrong, we will have our way, because we have a majority of 35 we will pass this amendment irrespective of the arguments made and we will not even attempt to reply to them".

I mentioned in my opening contribution what Deputy Kemmy had to say on the last occasion. I invite Deputies Killen and de Valera, who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Fainna Fáil terms, who have lost the Whip and acquired that very unusual freedom of movement that being an Independent in this House affords, to support this amendment tonight. There is no reason, political or otherwise, that they should not. I am sure both of them know perfectly well that what I, Deputy Finucane and Deputy Noonan have said is right.

I am not concerned whether anybody is transferred to the mid-west region as a result of this measure but, like Deputy Noonan, my concern is to prevent everybody being transferred out. The great concern is that in the nineties and in the 21st century all the work that is done in Shannon could be done from Dublin, or for that matter from Warsaw, because of the improvements in telecommunications and so on. The inexorable pressure will be that if it can be done in Dublin let us do it in Dublin. When all these services were established in and around Shannon there was no option at that time but there is an option now. Even if nobody is transferred from Dublin to the Shannon region, I want at least to guarantee that those who are there will remain and that they will not be forced against their will to come to Dublin.

We have the extraordinary double standard that to ask someone to move from Dublin to the western half of Ireland is tantamount to depriving a man or woman of their liberty, but to ask someone to move to Dublin is to confer a benefit on them. I have done a little commuting in my day and I do not regard being forced against my will to move to Dublin as any more palatable than to move in the other direction. People who have spent most of their lives outside Dublin would prefer if at all possible to remain there. The assumption that people can be asked to go to Dublin but cannot be asked to leave it is something I find very hard to accept.

Deputy Kemmy said at the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy on 13 July:

There is more to this than meets the eye. Deputy O'Malley is attempting to extract the maximum embarrassment from a Labour Deputy such as I from the mid-west, who is supporting the Government. I would remind him that the pendulum of politics swings back and forth and little apples will grow again, beidh lá eile ag an bpaorach. Two can play that game and I am a fairly dab hand at it; I am resourceful and can give an uppercut when necessary.

Deputy Dukes intervened at that point to say, not unreasonably, "We would never believe that the Deputy is so sanctimonious". Deputy Kemmy ignored that observation and went on to say:

I am very resourceful. I am just reminding Deputy O'Malley that some of his remarks were made tongue in cheek. There are two sides to every story and we will have another day.

Today is the other day. Deputy Kemmy has his opportunity to put his money where his mouth is or to demonstrate to this House and to this country that he is nothing but a windbag.

(Limerick East): Hear, hear.

Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 54.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.

Níl

  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Keogh and J. Higgins; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris.
Question declared lost.

I move amendment No. 8.

In page 19, line 20, after "section 23 (1)" to insert "or this section".

This is a technical amendment. As the House will be aware, for the purposes of the Companies Acts, single shares in semi-State companies are held in trust by certain nominees, usually civil servants, in the parent Department. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, when those shareholders who hold their shares in trust for the Minister transfer them, on the direction of the Minister, the recipients will also hold the shares in trust for the Minister.

In what section of the Companies Act is that requirement contained, or under which Act?

I am not sure of the specific section but the information available to me is that it arises under the companies Acts.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 20, line 32, to delete "£80 million" and substitute "£25 million".

This amendment is similar to an amendment I moved on Committee Stage. It relates to the guarantee of borrowings by the company given by the Minister for Finance. The Aviation Authority is not primarily a commercial company but it is providing certain services that have to be provided for aircraft using this country's airports or Irish airspace. They have to avail of the services whether they want to or not. It seems to me remarkable that the company, which has a monopoly and a guaranteed substantial income, could run up borrowings of the size envisaged here. If they do run up borrowings that should be a matter for the company and there should not be an automatic guarantee of those borrowings by the Minister for Finance.

The Minister is being empowered to guarantee borrowings up to £80 million. We were informed on Committee Stage by the Minister of State that much of the borrowings would not be guaranteed. I think that was meant to reassure the committee, but it had the opposite effect on me because it frightened me. That suggests there would be borrowings in excess of £80 million by a State company and I do not see the need or the point of that. Irrespective of borrowings there should be no need for a guarantee by the Minister for Finance, but if there is a guarantee it should be kept to some reasonable figure. I think £25 million is more than reasonable and more than adequate for the Minister for Finance to guarantee whatever borrowings may be made by the company.

If I were a banker I might be loath to lend to many people, but the Irish Aviation Authority, as set up under this Bill, would be a relatively risk free authority to whom to lend provided they kept their borrowings within reasonable limits, because they have a monopoly and they have a guaranteed substantial annual income.

We have had many experiences down through the years of borrowings being called in, some of examples of which I gave on Committee Stage. We are aware of the exposure under the State Guarantees Acts of the Minister for Finance and thereby the Exchequer and the taxpayer. The taxpayer is very heavily exposed to a variety of borrowings by a myriad of State companies. The amounts in question will be called in from the Minister for Finance or in a great many cases he will have to write off what is due to him on paper by the company or agency concerned. An example of where there is a very definite prospect of the amounts being called in — we had recent legislation relating to it — is NET; that seems a virtual certainty. Another company which springs to mind immediately in this context is Irish Steel and, of course, there are many more.

It is wrong in principle that State companies should borrow such excessive sums of money and that they should do so under the guarantee of the Minister for Finance and that the banks run no risk whatever. Is it any wonder that so much of the money lent in the State is lent to the State in one form or another and that there is consequent pressure from time to time on liquidity? If you look back over the past ten or 20 years you will see there was pressure on liquidity here during the great bulk of that time. Pressure on liquidity was caused by the excessive demand of the State for credit. I would have thought we had learned our lesson, because it drove up interest rates and that in turn affected inflation and, of course, it affects employment very seriously.

The Minister of State may wish to see this only in the context of this single company and as an isolated once off case. It is not an isolated once off case. This is another example of an area where we are, as a State, plunging deeper and deeper into areas into which we do not need to go.

It was not demonstrated on Committee Stage that there was any need to borrow these sums of money. It was not demonstrated that the money could not be borrowed without the guarantee of the Minister for Finance. It was suggested that because there was a guarantee the money could be borrowed at 1 per cent less or .5 per cent less than if there were not a guarantee and that since we were in a competitive world it would be better if an Irish State company could borrow at .5 per cent less because it was suggested that if the charges of this company were too high people would not use Irish airspace or Irish airports. They will use Irish airspace and Irish airports if they have to and they will not be put off by a .5 per cent interest difference in interest rates. Somebody who is flying across Ireland — about 25 times more planes fly across Ireland than land in Ireland — will not go 400 or 500 miles to the north or to the south simply because of a minor difference in charges, because the cost of travelling 400 or 500 miles to the north or to the south would be hundreds of time greater than any slight adjustment in cost. It seemed to me that the argument made by the Minister of State on Committee Stage did not, with the greatest of respect, have any merit. It had no cogency whatever.

I am tabling an amendment that is different in the amount specified but not in principle from the one I tabled on Committee Stage. I am now suggesting a figure of £25 million instead of £20 million. I am giving the Minister and the company the benefit of another £5 million of guaranteed borrowings if they so desire. What I am principally concerned about here is the message this subsection gives that automatically, whether it needs it or not, every State company, either existing companies or new companies as is the case here, should have huge guarantees from the Minister for Finance. We will not solve our problems, our underlying structural problems or our fiscal problems, if we continue to follow this route.

To say that it has been this way for 20 or 30 years is not an answer to this argument; it only strengthens my argument. It is because it has been this way for 20 or 30 years that we are wrong, that we should stop and avail of the opportunity now in this Bill to draw a line and say we will not continue on that route. If a company such as the Irish Aviation Authority has to operate in a way that will not be a drag on the taxpayer let it not start with a guarantee of £80 million that it or its bankers need never worry about. For a change let them live in the real world that everybody else, other than State companies in Ireland, has to live in and let them get on with running their affairs in that way. The people who run such companies are capable in a great many cases of running the business properly and competing in the real world. They do not need these kinds of guarantees and they should not be included in the Bill.

The effect of Deputy O'Malley's amendment is to reduce the company's borrowings, which the Minister for Finance could guarantee, from £80 million to £25 million. The maximum the company can borrow for capital purposes is fixed at £100 million, and this includes working capital. The Bill therefore allows the Minister for Finance to guarantee up to 80 per cent of this borrowing limit. I must emphasise that these are maximum limits. The company's borrowing might never reach the limit and the Minister for Finance may never consider it necessary to guarantee the entire £80 million of their borrowings.

However, it is reasonable to provide for this scale of borrowing by the company rather than have to come back to the House at a later date to increase it. Providing an air traffic control service to the highest international standards requires considerable and continuing capital investment. In the next five to seven years, the company's capital expenditure will be in the region of £60 million. The company will also need working capital commensurate with its turnover, which is currently approximately £40 million a year. Allowing for even modest inflation, the limits in the Bill are very reasonable.

Finally a £100 million borrowing facility against a guaranteed limit of £25 million would send a wrong message to the financial institutions and indeed to the users. Deputy O'Malley, as an experienced parliamentarian who has held various ministerial portfolios, knows that it is a matter for the Minister for Finance to decide how much he will guarantee and how much of the borrowing will be his liability in the event of difficulties. The Department of Finance, in advising the Minister, will ensure that any decision taken is prudent and reasonable. We are putting in these maximum limits, but that does not make it mandatory or automatic that the Minister for Finance will guarantee total borrowing up to the maximum limits. This is a matter between the company and the Minister and his advisers. I have given the financial latitude that is needed for the company to operate in the prevailing financial environment and in the future.

The Minister of State referred to the fact that I have had ministerial experience and should have realised that the Minister for Finance will not necessarily guarantee up to the limit of his statutory powers in respect of a company. I know he will not but vis-à-vis the banks who may be lenders, the Minister for Finance only has leverage against them when he has reached the statutory limit. If the guarantees are below the limit and the Minister for Finance does not want to give any further guarantee, the banks will force him to do it by threatening to pull the plug on the company. The only time in my experience that the Minister for Finance has leverage with banks is when the limit is reached. The Minister of State's argument is equally valid if it is made the other way round. I find it very disappointing that we should be expected again to write in a guarantee for a huge amount of money. If the Minister of State is right that the capital expenditure over the next seven years is expected to be £60 million, that is fair enough. There is nothing abnormal about that as the company's annual income will be very substantial. The figures were given on Committee Stage and I do not see a major difficulty in arranging to have a bank finance the company from their cashflow. The company, a monopoly, has a substantial annual guaranteed income and it is not too difficult to arrange finance for whatever capital investment has to be made over the next seven years. It also presupposes that none of the capital investment would have been paid by the seventh year when it was necessary to borow the last tranche of the £60 million. I do not accept that. In the normal way the money would and should have been paid because of the company's substantial cashflow and their monopoly.

I regret, in particular, the Minister's reluctance to deal with the main point I make, that this country should get away from constant reliance on the State at all times. State companies instead of being forced to operate as independent commercial entities are allowed to have recourse to the Exchequer and to the taxpayer at all times and are given that right of recourse by statute. That colours all their thinking and their outlook and this is what has us as a country in the difficulties we are in.

Question, "That the figure and word proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 23, line 3, after "year and" to insert ", not later than 3 months after such submission,".

This amendment arises from the Committee Stage debate. Deputies at that time observed that although the Authority was required to submit its annual report to the Minister within six months of the end of the year the Minister was not obliged to lay the report before the Houses of the Oireachtas within a particular time limit. I have considered this point and have decided that the Bill should require the Minister to lay the report before the Oireachtas within three months.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 23, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:

"(d) A director or member of the staff of the company shall not be appointed under paragraph (a) and a person standing appointed under paragraph (a) shall be disqualified for appointment as a director or member of the staff of the company,".

One of the innovative features in the Bill is the provision that the company should be subject to regular safety audits. We had always intended that the safety audit would be conducted by an independent outside interest such as the American Federal Aviation Authority or comparable organisation. During the Committee Stage debate when Deputies expressed their anxiety that the Authority might be involved in auditing themselves I decided the Bill should be amended to make it absolutely certain that the audits would be conducted independently. The Minister will have a totally independent safety audit done at least every three years to ensure the Authority continues to maintain the highest possible safety standards. The effect of this amendment is to ensure that the person the Minister appoints to conduct the safety audit of the Authority is absolutely independent of the Authority.

I welcome this amendment as an improvement on the Bill as it stands. However, this amendment touches on one of the central difficulties of this Bill — I found it difficult to table an amendment that would cover it adequately — that is, that the proposed company will be both an operating company and a supervisory Authority. They will in many instances be the Authority that has to make the decision as to whether they themselves are acting properly and reasonably. It is a very serious matter where something like air safety is concerned that there should be an overlap of functions in the one company between the part that is the operating company providing services for reward, and the part of the company that is an authority which is supposed to supervise the activities of themselves and other companies.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share