Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Oct 1993

Vol. 434 No. 5

Irish Aviation Authority Bill, 1993: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on 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.".

—(Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications.)

Mr. O'Malley

I have no objection to this amendment but the principle contained in the amendment should be spread more widely in the Bill. I pointed out that one of the difficulties I see in what is proposed is that the company which it is intended to establish acts at the one time as both an operating and trading company and as a regulatory authority, that there is an inherent conflict in that and that efforts should be made to avoid it. This amendment seeks to avoid a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest in one narrow respect. I welcome that, but a broader effort should be made to avoid this conflict of interest and overlap in respect of more fundamental matters than the specific matters contained in the amendment. I sought to draft a Report Stage amendment to cover this, but it is very hard to do it on Report Stage because one would have to put it down to some specific section and it is hard to see where one could put such an amendment in the Bill to cover what I see as one of the difficulties.

We have that problem in other respect. The Minister will be familiar with the argument about the conflict of interest between the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and, for example, a State company under the aegis of that Department, such as Telecom Éireann. There is conflict, or potential conflict, there between the Department and the company and the relationship is perhaps too close at times; but here we go a stage further because the conflict is between the differing functions or activities of the company, a conflict between its operational and trading activities and its regulatory or supervisory activities.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am concerned that the Deputy might seem to be embarking on a Second Reading speech rather than the brief speeches made on Report Stage.

Mr. O'Malley

I am a long way from a Second Reading speech. What I have to say arises directly from this amendment where there is a recognition of that problem, but a recognition of it in microcosm rather than in macrocosm. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about what can be done to avoid the undoubted conflict there. If the Bill is passed in its present form it will result in that conflict being made permanent and being institutionalised and it will have to be faced at some time in the future if and when something goes wrong.

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Cowen)

I listened with interest to the points made on a possible conflict in the operational and regulatory roles of the new authority. These points reflect concerns voiced on Committee Stage. Many Deputies expressed concern about the fact that the Aviation Authority would combine both the regulation of safety standards and the provision of service operating to those standards. We are fully aware of these concerns and the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Treacy, specifically referred to them when introducing the Bill. The fact that the area of overlap between the operational and regulatory areas is small does not alter the basic principle that as far as possible the operational and regulatory functions should be discharged separately. Neither is the principle altered by the fact that the regulatory function is relatively small and would possibly not be viable in a stand alone system.

We could debate this issue at length without finding the ideal solution. However, apart from setting up two separate bodies on leaving the regulatory function within the Department, there is no practical alternative to what is proposed in the Bill. The Bill is a practical approach to the issue and I am confident that the safeguards in it will ensure that the problems which Deputies fear will not arise. Having decided that these functions must be combined in one authority, we have put in place arrangements that will ensure transparency in the regulatory and operating standards of the Authority. We have done this by providing that the Minister retains overall responsibility for safety in policy and standards. The Authority will have to formally report to the Minister on its safety standards and he will arrange a safety audit at least every three years by an outside body to ensure that the standards are maintained.

This amendment, which has been welcomed, provides that the person appointed to conduct the safety audit must be independent of the Authority. This will allay any concern that the Authority might end up auditing itself. I have no doubt that the board of the Authority appointed by me will discharge its business with a proper regard for its safety mandate.

However, the Bill also makes provision for the unlikely eventuality that the board may take a decision which, in the view of its expert staff, would compromise safety. In that case the disagreement would be referred to the Minister who would then decide, after taking independent advice, what should be done. I must emphasise again that this brings the issue of safety policy back to the Minister.

As Minister I will retain responsibility for all aspects of accident investigation. I am satisfied that the Authority, with these safeguards, will responsibly and transparently discharge both its regulatory and operational functions.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will proceed to amendment No. 11a which is a drafting amendment. I observe that amendment No. 12 is cognate. I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 11a and 12 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 11a:

In page 27, line 21, to delete "from" and substitute "for".

This is a drafting amendment. I have been advised by the parliamentary draftsman that the standard usage in legal drafting is to say that someone is disqualified for an activity rather than from an activity.

Mr. O'Malley

I must confess that I doubt that very much; one is disqualified from driving, not for driving.

Mr. Cowen

One is disqualified for dangerous driving.

Mr. O'Malley

One is disqualified from driving for dangerous driving. With respect to the parliamentary draftsman I think he is wrong. One is disqualified from driving for the offence of dangerous or drunken driving; that is the way it is used. The proposed change does not make sense; it transposes normal usage. Nobody will say that they have been disqualified for driving; they will say that they have been disqualified from driving for the offence of dangerous or drunken driving. The provisions should be left as they are.

Mr. Cowen

I have to accept the view of the parliamentary draftsman in this matter. He says that one is qualified for something and disqualified for it.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I would love to hear the legal profession argue over a detail like this; this explains how they earned £2,000 a day at the beef tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 27, line 22, to delete "from" and substitute "for".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 28, line 45, to delete "1991" and substitute "1993".

The collective citation of the Unfair Dismissals Act must be corrected as a result of the enactment of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1993. The correct citation therefore should read the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 1993.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will proceed to amendment No. 14. I observe that amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 29, line 38, after "appropriate" to insert "annual".

This amendment arises from the debate on this section on Committee Stage. Unfortunately, I left the appropriate reference in my office and I cannot quote what was said on Committee Stage. However, I read it in the past few days and I can recall it.

This amendment relates to the pension or superannuation arrangements that will be made under section 41 in respect of those who transfer to the company from the Department. On Committee Stage there was a long discussion on this point and about some of the problems that appear to arise. The Minister of State concluded the discussion by saying that there appeared to be potential difficulties which he thought should be sorted out before Report Stage. He said he would table an amendment or amendments on Report Stage to deal with the points that had been raised. When asked by Deputy Noonan to outline the type of amendment he would table he said the amendment would relate to the question of annual payments by the Minister for Finance. To my surprise no amendments have been tabled by the Minister to this part of the section although the Select Committee agreed to the section on the basis that the Minister would table amendments.

The overall position in regard to the transfer of staff is not satisfactory. More than 600 staff are involved. At present these are civil servants who have all the rights of civil servants. In particular, they have very valuable pension rights but, as we are aware, these pensions are not payable out of a fund. No provision is made for them; they are payable each year as they arise out of current expenditure through the Exchequer. When the 650 people transfer to this company they will no longer be civil servants, they will be employees of the company. Therefore, they will lose their right to a Civil Service pension but it has been agreed that they should not be worse off. In particular they should not be worse off in respect of their superannuation rights but the company will have to establish, as companies of this kind do, a funded pension scheme. Because it is taking on approximately 650 people with varying degrees of service — some were employed as recently as six months ago while others were employed up to 40 years ago and are now reaching retirement age — it will be necessary to make provision for the fact that some will soon reach retirement age and the company will have to start paying pensions quite soon.

It is proposed in section 41 that not later than the end of the seventh year after the operative date, the date of commencement of operations of the company, the Minister for Finance will make a payment or payments to the company in respect of the State's superannuation liabilities to the 650 people concerned. During Committee Stage the Minister of State said that at least 10 per cent of the entire staff of the company would retire before the seventh year on the basis of their age and length of service.

It seems unsatisfactory that, although the Minister is free to make earlier payments if he wishes, he is not required under this section to do so until the end of the seventh year. That this company should have to operate for seven years with a grossly underfunded pension scheme is unfair to the people who work in the company and, in particular, to the people who might retire within the next seven years.

The Minister of State estimated on Committee Stage that the amount which the Minister for Finance would have to pay was likely to be £60 million and that interest would run on that figure from the operative date. The interest rate on that, 8 or 9 per cent, depending on how interest rates run in the future, will be very substantial. It may mean that the entire payment will be as much as £90 million or £95 million. The fact that the bulk of this payment is not to be made for seven years puts the people concerned at a serious disadvantage. When the time comes to make the payment the Government may say that the Exchequer cannot afford to do so because it is too big a sum to be paid out in this way and they will have some very compelling reasons for not paying. That sort of thing has happened in the past, not just in relation to superannuation but to other matters. From time to time devices are used to get round the difficulties, for example, putting the money up through the Central Bank and things of that kind.

This is unsatisfactory. It underlines the unsatisfactory situation in regard to Civil Service pensions. Quite a number of civil servants, particularly the more senior ones, are so concerned about their pensions that they go to some expense to insure them. As I have discovered in the past, when one talks about this issue one is alleged to be suggesting that civil servants not be paid their pensions in the future. The opposite is the case and those who understand the situation realise that drawing attention to the difficulties which may arise in 15 or 20 years time is only doing a service to those who could then stand to lose.

Those who are moving out of the Civil Service are entitled to a properly funded pension scheme and they cannot have that unless the Minister for Finance makes the payment or payments quickly and funds the scheme properly. In the early years the contributions that the company can collect from its employees and will make to the fund from the operative date will be but a tiny fraction of what the Minister for Finance actually owes this fund. I am suggesting that the period within which the final payments should be made be reduced from seven years to two years and that payments be made annually. At the moment it is open to the Minister for Finance to make an annual payment, but he is not obliged to do it. The amendments I am proposing would require him to make annual payments and that would be much more satisfactory. I ask the Minister to accept these amendments. Otherwise there will be total uncertainty about the position of those 600 people.

The popular view is that the State always looks after its own. That may be true when the State is in a position to do it, but will the State be in a position to do it in 15 years time? Present indications are that it will not, and many people are privately aware of that even though it is not talked about much in public. We must also remind ourselves of how the State looked after people who were regarded as its employees in certain State companies. For many years we saw former employees of Irish Shipping parading in uniform outside the gates of Leinster House. The Minister should ask them how they were looked after as employees of a State company and what pensions they enjoy today after many years service. How would the employees fare if this country were to go the same way? It is necessary to face up to these questions and not simply fob them off with general assurances that everything will be all right.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The case made by Deputy O'Malley was made here on Second Stage and was made very extensively on Committee Stage. The arguments he has now reiterated were recited on Committee Stage by several Deputies and reached finality when the Minister of State agreed with the principle of the argument that was being advanced and committed himself to introducing an appropriate amendment to guarantee the pension rights of those civil servants who are being transferred out of the Civil Service in its strictest sense and into the new State company. That was the clear impression on Committee Stage. I am very disappointed that no amendment has been brought forward by the Minister to meet the points raised, and this outcome will influence my behaviour on Committee Stage in the future. It was a feature of debate on this Bill that right through Committee Stage the Minister had all party co-operation. On several occasions we arrived at points where there were clear differences of opinion between some of us on the committee and the Minister, and amendments were withdrawn on the basis that the Minister would bring in appropriate amendments on Report Stage. He has not done so.

We had another example of this yesterday when we discovered during the week, subsequent to assurances having been given to the Meteorological Service that their professional work would not be interfered with in any way, that air traffic controllers have got barometric equipment at Shannon, Dublin and Cork airports which enables them to take pressure readings at airports and cut straight across the service being provided by the Meteorological Service. Yesterday we heard a cock and bull explanation of that. We co-operated on Committee Stage. The same co-operation will not be forthcoming on future occasions because there has been a serious breach of trust in the manner in which the Minister of State and the Department have dealt with the committee. We withdrew amendments in good faith on being given certain commitments and those commitments have not been met.

Mr. Cowen

I take a serious view of the charge that the Department, the Minister of State and I have acted in bad faith. When charges like that are made I would like the record of the House to show it.

The Minister, who was sympathetic to the arguments put on Committee Stage, undertook to consult extensively with the Department to see if there was any way he could meet the argument put. It has not been shown to me that an undertaking was given specifically to bring forward an amendment and in the absence of such evidence the charge of bad faith should not be made.

Section 41 of the Bill deals with the superannuation arrangements for the Authority. ANSO staff who will be transferred to the Authority will carry with them their full pension entitlements. These pension entitlements are a liability of the Minister for Finance to be discharged within seven years of the vesting day. Deputy O'Malley's amendments suggest that payments be made anually to discharge the liability within two years. As I have said, on Committee Stage the Minister of State undertook to consult with the Minister for Finance on this issue. The conclusion is that the seven year payment period is appropriate and should not be changed. It would not be appropriate to provide for annual payment and the Minister for Finance has no interest in deferring payment. If Exchequer finances permitted, it would be preferable to make the payment early rather than late to avoid paying interest. However, in this matter it would not be wise to fix arrangements too rigidly. There always must be flexibility available to the Minister for Finance to vary the amounts and times of payments to the fund within the parameters of the seven year limit. I understand that in the preparation of the 1994 Estimates a sum of £9 million is being provided for in this regard.

The Aviation Authority pension fund arrangements will be subject to the provisions of the Pensions Act, 1990, and the requirements of the Pensions Board, which regulates the adequacy of funding in pension schemes. As it is the firm intention of the Minister for Finance that the funding will be paid in regular instalments within the period of seven years as specified, I do not propose to amend the Bill to require that these payments be made annually. As Deputies will be aware, staff who retire before vesting day will receive their normal pensions as civil servants in the usual way.

Mr. O'Malley

I repeat that I am disappointed with the attitude taken by the Minister. There was a great deal of co-operation in the committee which sat on two days for a total of five or six hours. Even though this is a very long and complicated Bill, a very high degree of co-operation was shown. A statement was made by the Minister of State that there would be an amendment to section 41. As I clearly recall, the Minister was invited, I think by Deputy Noonan, to specify the general nature of the amendment and he spoke in particular about ensuring that there would be annual payments. I think the Minister was convinced by the argument made. He realised that there was a problem and said he would try to meet it as best he could.

There was a number of amendments down in my name and in the names of others and we agreed to withdraw those amendments as a result of the assurance given. I find it disconcerting that even though assurance was given there are no amendments in the Minister's name. The position is not as simple, clearcut and safe as the Minister now suggests. The staff involved, certainly the more senior staff who understand what is involved here, are concerned about the matter and they are entitled to be so. It is a great pity that these amendments which seek to meet the point conceded by the Minister of State in the committee are not now being accepted.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 80.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Carey, Donal.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cox, Pat.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Creed, Michael.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan M.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Harney, Mary.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick East).
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Owen, Nora.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhamjee, Moosajee.
• Bree, Declan.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Callely, Ivor.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Eithne.
• Flood, Chris.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Gallagher, Pat.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hilliard, Colm M.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Upton, Pat.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Derek.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick West).
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Penrose, William.
• Power, Seán.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Keogh and E. Kenny; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

How stands amendment No. 15?

Mr. O'Malley

With regard to amendment No. 15, the last point that I made, at column 591 of the Official Report of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy, was:

On the understanding that an adequate amendment will be brought forward by the Minister of State to meet these points on Report Stage I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Cowen

Was that a common understanding or the Deputy's understanding?

Mr. O'Malley

It was a common understanding. It is what I said and no one dissented from it, including the Minister of State.

An Ceann Comhairle

The debate on amendment No. 15 has concluded.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): In bad faith.

Mr. O'Malley

I did not have the Official Report of the committee when I was speaking on amendment No. 14 and that is why I read it out now. Clear assurances were given that an amendment would be brought forward. It was not specified as to what exactly it would be because obviously that had to be worked out, but a clear assurance was given and I am disappointed at the breach of faith. I will not be moving amendments Nos. 15 and 16 because they were taken with amendment No. 14. There was a vote on No. 14 and as far as I am concerned that covered the three amendments. However, I have to express my disappointment and I am sure the Minister and his Department will realise that if they give these assurances in a committee and they are accepted and then broken subsequently, it will make it much more difficult to operate in a committee on subsequent Bills.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 17 in the name of the Minister and I have note of a printing error in this amendment which is a drafting amendment. I wish to advise the House that in the first line of paragraph (c) (i) the word "changes" should read "charges".

Mr. Cowen

Before I move this amendment may I say that Deputies who had the benefit of attending Committee Stage will agree that the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, in an effort to reach agreement on these issues, sought to reconcile the points being raised by Deputies with the position of the Department of Finance? Despite extensive consultations, this did not prove possible. I do not wish to repeat what I said in my reply, but in order that there would not be any indication of bad feeling as we come towards the end of this Bill, the Minister of State sought to reconcile two opposing positions and the assurances that are being given, without putting forward an amendment, in substance meet the point that has been raised. I am sure down through the years Deputy O'Malley in his ministerial capacity found that, while he was sympathetic to the position of other Deputies it was not possible to put forward amendments which would meet Opposition Deputies' points. That did not reflect on his good faith in the matter. In the absence of the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, I must defend him in that respect.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 45, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"(c) in the said section 32—

(i) in subsection (2), `or, in case the changes are alleged to be due to Eurocontrol, to Eurocontrol' shall be inserted after `as the case may be,',

(ii) in subsection (3) (a), `or Eurocontrol' shall be inserted after `authority', and

(iii) in subsection (10) `or Eurocontrol' shall be inserted after `authority',".

This section deals with the detection of aircraft. The general effect of this amendment is to ensure that where Eurocontrol is responsible for collecting charges for services, it will have all the necessary powers to secure payment. The Bill as drafted omitted to mention Eurocontrol in certain subsections, so the powers given to Eurocontrol were incomplete. The effect of the amendment is to rectify the omission of Eurocontrol from specific provisions of this section.

In detail, the section as redrafted first of all provides that where an aircraft is detained because the operator failed to make payments due to Eurocontrol, the aircraft may not be detained if the operator gives Eurocontrol security for the charges due. In the Bill as drafted provision had been made for the giving of security only to the Authority. The section as redrafted provides also that a detained aircraft may be sold with the permission of the court if the court is satisfied that charges are in fact due to Eurocontrol. The Bill as drafted covered the situation only where money was due to the Authority.

Finally, the section as redrafted provides that this section does not prejudice the right of Eurocontrol to recover any charges by court action.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I have no difficulty with this amendment. The Minister's explanation adequately covers the points.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 49, line 13, to delete "other than an aircraft" and substitute ", other than an aircraft,".

This is purely a drafting amendment. It improves the punctuation of the sentence in the interests of clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 49, lines 28 and 29, to delete ",by whatever name called" and substitute "and by whatever name called".

Again, this is a minor drafting amendment intended to make the paragraph clear. It does not affect the meaning of the provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 50, line 24, after "designated" to insert "by the Minister for the purposes of this section with the consent of the Minister for Finance".

The Bill provides that if the Minister transfers any land to the Authority on vesting day he will need the consent of the Minister for Finance. The effect of this amendment is to ensure that if the Minister transfers any land to the Authority in the year after vesting day, the procedure will be the same. This was not explicitly stated in the section as originally drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 50, line 50, before "initiative" to insert "own".

Again, this is a purely drafting amendment which does not affect the meaning of the provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 52, line 13, before "extracts" to insert "of".

This is a correction of a clerical error.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. T. Foxe)

That concludes Report Stage. When is it proposed to take the Fifth Stage?

Mr. Cowen

Next Tuesday, with the agreement of the Whips.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Can we take Fifth Stage now?

Mr. Cowen

I am agreeable to that.

Agreed to take Fifth Stage now.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

Mr. O'Malley

On the Fifth Stage, I wish to refer to what I said in the Select Committe on Enterprise and Economic Strategy, column 590 of the Official Report:

The Minister of State's commitment [that is the commitment in relation to certain amendments] is binding on no one other than himself. I would love to hear what the Department of Finance has to say to this. It obviously knows well that it is not in a position to pay over this money. That is why it insisted on this subsection being drafted in this way.

I go on then to expand on the amount of money and so on. The Minister, in his attempted defence of the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, said that agreement could not be reached with the Department of Finance and that therefore the Bill could not be amended. That is precisely the point I made in the committee. That is exactly what I foretold, that the Department of Finance would not agree, and to say therefore that this House cannot amend the Bill simply because the Department of Finance does not agree seems to display an extraordinarily warped level of priorities.

There are many things to which the Department of Finance never agrees but that does not mean that people do not go ahead and do things, whether in Government or in the Oireachtas. We would not make much progress in this country if we accepted the strictures and censures of the Department of Finance in relation to everything. That is why I regard it as regrettable not merely in relation to this Bill, which is not that important in itself, that if assurances of this kind are given in committees in the future, frankly, they will not be believed. I predict that will mean a great deal less progress being made on Committee Stage than if assurances given by Ministers could be believed. I contend Ministers are very foolish to weaken their credibility by saying that they will do certain things, then not doing them, and using as an excuse the fact that the Department of Finance would not agree. That is making little of their own position.

I have no objection to the Bill as a whole; I hope its provisions will work. Undoubtedly, it contains some potential difficulties. A great deal will depend on the attitude the Department takes in relation to this company. I should love to see circumstances prevail in which Departments were more objective than has often been the norm in dealing with State companies, or operating companies of this kind. There were indications, at least on the air transport side, that that was happening. If that is the case I greatly welcome it but there are indications in other areas that perhaps it is not happening, particularly in regard to Telecom Éireann. In so far as it is not happening it is regrettable. I hope that, in relation to this company, the rather delicate relationship which will have to exist will be a genuine one at arm's length and that the Department will not see its function simply to cover up whatever deficiencies come to light from time to time in the operations of the company.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I have no objection either to the Bill passing but I want to make some reflections on the manner in which it was dealt with.

One aspect of the committee system was that Committee Stages of Bills would be taken in Special Committee. It was never envisaged by those of us on this side of the House who agreed with that that this was merely a parliamentary device to progress committee work out of the view of the media or public so that Committee Stages of Bills could pass more quickly through the House. It was envisaged that, because of the committee system, the views of all Members of the House, through the committees would be taken into account, that the more confrontational type of Committee Stage which we used have here on the Floor of the main Chamber would be obviated, that in the calm, more intimate atmosphere of a committee, Ministers would listen to the views expressed by Opposition Members and so far as possible, improve the legislation by taking their views into account also.

There were three areas of contention in this Bill. One was a matter of principle which I believe to be very important, that is, that as well as providing the service of air traffic control, the new aviation authority would also carry out regulatory and safety functions. It was pointed out to the Minister of State that this was a serious flaw in the Bill, that the practice in other European countries is that the agency which regulates is not the agency which provides the commercial service of air traffic control, yet scarcely anything has been done between Committee and Report Stages to meet the objections voiced. I predict that everything will go fine for a while but that inevitably something will happen when the conflict of interests inherent in this Bill between the two functions of the new aviation authority will become clear. On the one hand, the service providers in the new aviation authority are mandated to work commercially. But we must remember that on the margins always there is a tension between effective commercial operations and the safety measures which would be required. I contend there is a need for an alternative agency or the Minister's Department to decide on marginal cases, when questions of safety should override questions of commerciality.

The Minister has left that flaw in the Bill, has not taken into account the views of the Members of the select committee which were widespread and expressed by all parties.

There are two other areas of contention, one we have just gone through, that was the question of the preservation of pension rights for civil servants who would be transferred to the new agency. Commitments were very clearly given by the Minister of State, we were left in no doubt whatsoever that if we co-operated and allowed the sections to go through, appropriate amendments would be introduced on Report Stage. That was not done. As Deputy O'Malley has pointed out, there is now a feeling among us that there was bad faith there. It is not sufficient to say: "We did our best, lads, but we are only a line Department, the Department of Finance would not allow us do what we feel should have been done in the Bill." That is not the way business should be conducted.

The third area of contention hinged on the guarantees to other sections of the public service which might be affected, in particular the Meteorological Service. I believe that the Meteorological Service has been treated in a most shabby fashion, as have members of the select committee, in that absolute guarantees were given by the Minister of State in committee that there would be no encroachment on the professional area of the Meteorological Service. Before we even took Report Stage there was the purchase of the very equipment which would allow the air traffic control people to carry out the functions of the Meteorological Service. I might add that the same commitments were given to the staff associations, which commitments have also been breached.

To my mind that does not augur well for the committee system in the future. I can assure the Minister that, in relation to any other legislation that comes before a committee on which I serve, we will not be so soft in making concessions in the light of the grave question mark over the credibility of the commitments given on this Bill.

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Cowen)

In reply to Deputy Noonan's point about the purchase of some technical barometric equipment by the ANSO people, I should say that is available as an alternative to provide an indication of barometric pressure to aircraft should the Meteorological Service be on strike. For example, if a housewife buys a fire extinguisher, does that mean that the fire brigade becomes redundant?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Is the Minister going to allow the Meteorological Service buy radar for the aid of the air traffic controller?

Mr. Cowen

I am endeavouring to put into perspective the points made by Deputy Noonan. I should like to say on behalf of the Department and of the Minister of State who handled this Bill that I and my Department very much appreciate the efforts, work and contributions of Members on all sides in relation to the speedy passage of this Bill.

Quite clearly, as we enact the Bill, some areas of disagreement remain; that will always be the case no matter how well a Bill may have been drafted. I want to reiterate that I am at the disadvantage of not having been present to listen to the debate through all Stages. I should say that the Department have acted in good faith on all matters. Substantively the points raised in relation to certain amendments have been met by the assurances of the practices that will be engaged in by the new aviation authority once it comes into being after vesting day. I do believe that the commercialisation of this organisation into a semi-State company is the right move and will provide a secure future for this type of operation. I wish the incoming chief executive designate and incoming board well in the important work on which they will embark as a new fledging semi-State company. I do believe this is a successful means by which we can pursue air navigation safety into the future. I am sure it is welcomed by everybody. The staff and everyone else who will be involved in the transfer to semi-State status, I think, are happy, after a long discussion, that proper safeguards and arrangements are being made for the security of their employment and pension rights in the future.

Question put and agreed to.