Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 May 1998

Vol. 491 No. 4

Air Navigation Air Transport (Amendment) Bill, 1997: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 7:
In page 11, after line 49, to insert the following:
"(3) In the first financial year the dividend shall not exceed the value of the assets transferred under section 14 of this Act.".
—(Deputy Yates.)

Amendment Nos. 7, 8 and 11 are being discussed together. The issue at stake here is the one of payment by the company to the Government on vesting day. During the debate on Committee Stage, I described this as a double ‘smash and grab' or double whammy. That description was valid.

The Minister should take into account the fact that £207 million has been paid in dividends to the Government by Aer Rianta in the recent past. That does not take into account the large amount of taxes paid by the company and its workers in PRSI and PAYE. The company is now also faced with the certainty of the loss of duty free sales which will have a serious impact on the number of jobs in the company and will lose in the region of £6 million in revenue per annum. This loss arises directly from the fact that a previous Fianna Fáil administration agreed to the abolition of duty free at a Council of Ministers meeting in 1991. At that time the former Minister, Deputy Albert Reynolds, had just been sacked by the then Taoiseach, Charlie Haughey, and the present Taoiseach had not at that stage been appointed as Minister for Finance. The Government did not send any Minister to the meeting.

In the absence of a Fianna Fáil Minister at the meeting, a decision was made to abolish duty free sales.

My constituency colleague, the Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Public Enterprise are currently engaged in a duet of shadowboxing. Fianna Fáil had the opportunity to veto the decision on duty free but did not even send a Minister to the meeting to exercise it. There is no possibility of reversing that decision at this stage. We have witnessed a great deal of crocodile tears on the issue since this Government came to power. The loss of duty free sales will now be piled on top of the double whammy, smash and grab proposed in this Bill. Amendment No. 11 in my name is intended to prevent the Minister making that grab.

We had a very long and detailed discussion on this matter on Committee Stage during which I more or less revealed the Government decision on this matter. That may have been somewhat risqué on my part. I stated then that it would be possible to enter into discussions with the Minister for Finance if we found that the provisions of the Bill would impose undue hardship on Aer Rianta. However, I was not listened to.

I took the opinions expressed in the Committee Stage debate very much to heart and I give credit where it is due. Deputies Stagg, Yates and Daly all spoke on the matter. A series of discussions was subsequently instituted between my Department and the Department of Finance, myself and the Minister for Finance and the chairman and one board member of Aer Rianta. The outcome of those discussions is that there will neither be a double whammy or a smash and grab in regard to this issue. In spite of Deputy Stagg's exotic language, the Committee Stage debate had the desired result and is proof that there can be co-operation.

The board of Aer Rianta held its AGM today which I visited. The company is recording good results of which Members will receive a copy in due course. During the course of my visit today, I was informed that representatives of the company had an hour long meeting with Commissioner Monti in Brussels yesterday after making several attempts to meet with him. It was very interesting to hear details of their meeting with him. A press conference on the matter will be held this afternoon and the board will outline details of the meeting.

The case for duty free is certainly not lost. I commend Deputy Stagg's constituency colleague, the Minister for Finance, for the work he has done in this regard. I am sure Deputy Stagg would wish to commend him too in spite of his reference to crocodile tears.

The Minister and I have a good understanding.

The Minister has succeeded in bringing several countries round to his point of view although more work needs to be done.

Deputy Yates was correct in saying that the financial aspects of the Bill are the most important ones. Most time was spent on them in the drafting of the Bill and a good result was achieved. Following discussions with the company chairman and the Minister for Finance, I believe it will be possible to deal with Deputies' concerns without having to amend the Bill. Their amendments are a credit to them.

Members were concerned to ensure that Aer Rianta will not place an unacceptable drain on its resources in any one year as a result of the timing of events associated with the implementation of this Bill or of the amounts paid over. The payments in question are once-off cash payments in exchange for the airport assets and, in the future, the expected payments of dividends on the company's profits, the payment of rates on property vested and the payment of corporation tax. As regards the timing of the different charges to which the company will become liable once its status changes, the dates payments will become due will depend on the date agreed for vesting day. I have agreed with the Minister for Finance that the following dates and payments sequence would be the most appropriate. Aer Rianta will pay its normal dividend or cash surrender of approximately £14 million in the current year, 1998. That amount is similar to the amount paid last year. That is the only sum Aer Rianta will pay to the shareholder in 1998. I plan to order vesting day to be 1 January 1999. Aer Rianta will then pay approximately £14.5 million to the Exchequer in return for the land and assets vested. The shareholder will receive no dividend payment in 1999 so the £14.5 million which Aer Rianta will pay for the assets will be the only cash paid to the shareholder in that year. Corporation tax on company profits earned in 1999 will fall due in the year 2000. In that year Aer Rianta will also pay the dividend on the profits achieved in 1999. It will also pay rates on property vested in the company from the commencement of the next following financial year after vesting day, which is the year 2000.

To summarise, Aer Rianta will pay its normal dividend this year, it will make a single cash for assets payment in 1999 and, like any other company, it will pay rates, corporation tax and dividends from the year 2000. There will, therefore, be no "double whammy" or "smash and grab" and the proposed amendments, Nos. 7, 8 and 11, are not necessary.

These decisions arose as a result of the discussion on Committee Stage and from my intention to revitalise the Government decision which permitted further discussion of the matter with the Minister.

I compliment the Minister and take note of the fact that debates on Committee Stage can yield results. I thank the Minister for taking heed of our arguments and for acting effectively on them in Cabinet, where the essential decision was made. I will withdraw my amendment.

I also welcome the Minister's response. Her decision meets the objective of amendment No. 7. It is a just solution. The situation would have been slightly different if in 1984 a large subvention had been paid by the State to build Dublin airport or other assets but Aer Rianta paid for these assets from its resources and revenues.

I will withdraw amendment No. 7 but amendment No. 8 applies to any year. It would prevent a future Minister — or malign Minister as Deputy Stagg termed it — demanding too high a dividend. In five years' time a Minister for Finance could tell Aer Rianta: "we did you a favour in 1999 to the extent of £14 million and now there is an election coming up and we are stuck for cash". The annual dividend should always have due regard for the cash and borrowing position of the company so I intend to press that amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 11, after line 49, to insert the following:

"(3) In determining the level of annual dividend due regard will be given to the cash and borrowing position of the company at that time.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 10 is related to amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 will be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 12, line 27, to delete "£250 million" and substitute "£350 million".

On Committee Stage I said the borrowing ceiling of £250 million was too low and the Minister said she would review the provision on Report Stage. I also said it was inadvisable to determine the borrowing ceiling in primary legislation. Amendment No. 10 appears to permit the Minister, in consultation with the company, to alter the ceiling by order rather than through legislation. If that amendment meets the point at issue, I will not delay the House by pressing amendment No. 9.

On consideration of this amendment following Committee Stage, I accepted the need to allow an increase in the borrowing level as it might be required in certain years. In addition, the inclusion of a borrowing limit might, in other circumstances, limit the company's actions and amending legislation would be required if more money had to be borrowed. Amendment No. 10, therefore, will permit the borrowing limit to be reviewed.

The Bill provides for a borrowing ceiling of £250 million. In the 1997 annual report Aer Rianta's total borrowings are listed at £90, an increase from £35 million the previous year. The increase is in line with expectations and is due to the purchase by Aer Rianta of stakes in Dusseldorf and Birmingham airports as well as investment in the three State airports. Amendment No. 10 will allow the Minister to amend the £250 million ceiling on borrowing by ministerial order. The corporate plan for the next five years shows projected peak borrowings at £219 million in the year 2000. However, circumstances can change and as projections and aspirations increase, the amount of money required might also increase.

I thank the Deputy for pursuing this issue by putting down his amendment but the Government's amendment meets his objective.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 12, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

"(6) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and after consultation with the company, by order vary the amount specified in subsection (5).".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 34 are cognate to amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 34 can be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 14, lines 39 and 40, to delete "such airport" and substitute "a State airport".

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 were proposed by the parliamentary draftsman who said that amending legislation would be required in the future if they are not made. They ensure that the conferring on the company of powers of compulsory acquisition will relate to land and airports within the State. They make it clear there is no attempt to confer such powers in relation to Aer Rianta's airports abroad, now or in the future.

Amendment No. 34 is an important technical amendment which will ensure that the Minister will only retain powers to regulate airport charges imposed by the company in State airports and not in airports abroad. It is necessary because Aer Rianta has an involvement in Dusseldorf and Birmingham airports and might have a future involvement in other foreign airports.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 14, lines 41 and 42, to delete "an airport owned in whole or in part or managed by the company" and substitute "a State airport".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 is an alternative to amendment No. 14. Amendments Nos. 14 and 22 can be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 17, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"(b) the Chief Executive shall ex-officio be a director of the company;”.

Amendment No. 22 is identical.

It should be in the section of the Bill dealing with the chief executive. It is the same amendment but the location is changed. I believe it is pernickity but that is parliamentary draftsmen for you, to paraphrase the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds.

It is pernickity but that is probably essential. I will withdraw my amendment in favour of the Minister's.

I put down a similar amendment on Committee Stage. Both Deputy Stagg and the Minister came to the conclusion that an ex officio director's role was appropriate. Why? I am strongly of the view that all chief executives should be full directors. Aer Lingus has an executive chairman at present. What does ex officio mean? Why should the managing director not be a fully fledged board member, or is it the case that there are not enough members on the board?

No. Let us say Tom Browne is the chief executive. He is in the office of chief executive and has all the powers of a board member. He is not Tom Browne, member of the board.

If Billy Murphy takes over that position he would become chief executive?

By virtue of his office.

He would have no lesser right as a director than anybody else.

That is right. When I visited Aer Rianta today I told John Burke we would be dealing with this Stage of the Bill and that I hoped this matter would be agreed.

Did the Minister give me due credit?

Is John Burke the new chief executive?

Yes, he was appointed about a month ago. He was very honoured to be appointed and he asked me to convey his thanks to everybody.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 17, line 26, to delete "and 1988," and substitute "to 1993,".

This is a drafting amendment.

I thank Deputy Stagg for the amendment which proposes the more up to date reference to the Worker Participation Acts and I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 20 are related and may be taken together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 18, to delete lines 9 to 11 and substitute the following:

"(a) to own and manage the airports vested in it by section 14, and to own either in whole or in part or manage alone or jointly with another person any other airports, whether within the Sate or not, whenever it considers it to be advantageous to the development of the company to do so,".

In this amendment I am trying to protect all the assets of the company from sale. We are describing here a core function of the company, to own and manage the airports vested in it by section 14, that is the three Irish airports owned at present by Aer Rianta. They are specifically described by the term "vested in it by section 14". Without taking from the rest of the amendment, I am specifically including those airports. This changes the core function to own airports to include specifically the transferred airports of Dublin, Cork and Shannon, thus emphasising that they cannot be divested by the company without statutory change. I hope the Minister understands the logic of my argument.

The amendment originates from my fear that under this legislation the core activity of the company may be transferred to subsidiaries of the company. I am satisfied that is possible under this legislation and, therefore, this protection is necessary to ensure a statutory change is required for the sale of any of the core activity.

Amendment No. 16 deals with the section which sets down the principal objects of the company. Section 23 is the key enabling section. Its intention is to give as broad a charter as possible to Aer Rianta for its core business. Its key purpose is to normalise Aer Rianta's position as a stand-alone commercial semi-State body. The section sets out the principal objects of the company and gives it the power to do anything that is necessary, advantageous or incidental to the attainment of its objectives. The more general non-exclusive text in the Bill is the correct approach. It seems to be the general opinion with such Bills that company objectives should be of a general character and an enabling nature. My purpose in this legislation is not to bind the company — far from it — but to ensure its charter is broad and flexible to allow it to adapt to prevailing circumstances.

In this section Deputy Stagg has proposed a rewording of paragraph (a) of section 23(1) which would restrict the company from entering into a partnership management arrangement at any of the State airports, but that would be too restrictive. This Bill is an enabling Bill. It is not intended that it should introduce new restrictions on the company's commercial freedom of action. In these days of strategic partnerships, public and private investment initiatives and other such innovative schemes, it would be unwise to limit the scope of the company in the manner proposed.

If amendment No. 20 was accepted, the provision would be unworkable. The Bill is intended to give the company a commercial mandate to manage State airports. This may from time to time involve the purchase of extra land by the company and the sale of land which may no longer be required. Amendment No. 20 would not allow the company freedom to purchase or sell, which are ordinary commercial decisions in the life of a semi-State company. While the amendments were put forward from an excellent standpoint, they would have the effect of stifling the normal commercial activities of Aer Rianta.

I fail to understand how inserting a specific clause into a general provision, that the company will own Cork, Dublin and Shannon airports, would restrict the company in any way or limit the scope of its commercial activity. Perhaps the Minister will say how that could be. The amendment simply proposes to insert the names of the three airports in addition to the general description of the activity of the company. That will not limit the functions of Aer Rianta concerning Shannon, Cork and Dublin. I cannot understand the logic of the Minister's arguments.

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

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 18, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"(g) to promote the maximum level of air traffic into and out of the State.".

In response to Deputy Stagg's last amendment the Minister said that the purpose of section 23 is to set out in a general way the objectives of the company. I propose an addition to that, to promote the maximum level of air traffic into and out of the State. Successive Ministers received requests from regional airports for a marketing programme to support their efforts to boost them. Aer Rianta is doing very well — its annual accounts were launched today — while regional airports are faring very poorly and in some cases finding it difficult to manage. They are now faced with the abolition of duty free sales, which will scupper them. I recently met a group from Knock airport who are devastated by the potential loss of duty free sales. In that context I ask the Minister to accept this amendment, which does not have a hidden agenda. With sea travel and other methods of travel, it is a reasonable request that part of the functions would be to promote the maximum level of air traffic into and out of the State.

On Committee Stage we discussed the objective of maximising air traffic into the State. Obviously, the more traffic that uses the three State airports, the more Aer Rianta benefits. The number of people using those airports increased significantly in 1997. A general provision is best in these circumstances.

Section 23(3) states the company shall have the power to do anything which is advantageous to the performance of its functions. It will also take measures to develop those airports. Those measures, and the normal ambition of any company to grow its business, would lead it to promote the optimum level of air traffic. Aer Rianta is responsible for encouraging air traffic through its airports which include Dublin, Shannon and Cork. It does not have responsibility for other privately owned airports, such as Knock, Waterford, Sligo and Farranfore. This amendment would imply that Aer Rianta has a role to play in respect of those airports and that would not be appropriate.

The thrust of the Deputy's amendment relates to regional airports because Aer Rianta would encourage as many passengers as possible to use its airports. Successive Ministers, such as Deputies Dukes and Stagg, were responsible for the first three years of the marketing programme to provide funding for regional airports. I am continuing that programme. The regional airports operate under tight controls.

The decision to abolish duty free will have a major impact on them, although I do not foresee that happening. In the case of Farranfore, Knock and other airports, the sale of duty free allows them to operate on a viable basis. I believe Knock only breaks even and duty free certainly helps to keep it viable. I hope we will be successful on the duty free agenda.

Acceptance of this amendment would imply that Aer Rianta has a role in the management and encouragement of air traffic through regional airports. Apart from the State airports of Dublin, Shannon and Cork, Aer Rianta does not have a role to play. I cannot give it a role in respect of regional airports which are privately owned and run. The State provides a flight subsidy for all regional airports except Knock. Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 19, to delete lines 7 to 11.

The inclusion of the lines I seek to delete would make the company immune from the law. I fail to understand why Aer Rianta would not be subject to court proceedings and penalised for breaking its own rules. If its articles of association prohibit it from making a contribution to a political party and it makes a contribution to the Government, this section would exclude the possibility of any action being taken against it. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to include this measure in the Bill? Why is Aer Rianta not subject to the law the same as everybody else?

This perplexes me. When drafting the Bill we referred to the legislation the Deputy initiated when in Government. This measure was included in the text agreed for the original Bill.

That is the first little put down.

It was the same people who drafted the legislation.

I am aware of that, but I am perplexed by it. I am told the deletion of this section, as proposed by Deputy Stagg, would mean the company could be pursued through the courts. The subsection proposed for deletion is a standard safeguard provision used in legislation relating to all State bodies. It appears that what applies to one applies to all. While I am perplexed by the measure, if it applies to all State bodies it would not be within my remit to change it in respect of this one. The current text reflects identical provisions in recent Acts relating to the IAA and in the Harbours Act of 1996. The parliamentary draftsman has advised us that section 24(2) is an important safeguard — for who I wonder? Section 23 simply provides the full scope of activities which may be legitimately undertaken by the company.

Removing section 24(2) would mean that anyone could bring a case against the company to oblige it to carry out any of its principal objects. In my opinion that would be an admirable thing to do. While I do not fully agree with this measure, if it applies to all State bodies I cannot accept the amendment. I am told that if people endure an injury or are mistreated by a company they can take a civil case in a court against a company. I am puzzled by this measure, but I cannot accept the amendment.

If, under the company's articles of association, contributions to political parties were outlawed, and it paid a sum of £5,000 to a political party, it could not be brought to court. It would be above the law and could not be sanctioned for breaking its own rules. The Minister might sack the board, particularly if the contribution were given to the wrong party, but this measure reflects the old protectionism under which semi-State bodies protect themselves against the public. I suggest the Minister should break the mould in this case.

I have broken the mould on three or four matters already.

The Minister has the support of this side of the House on this matter. If she deletes the section, the roof will not fall in.

I want to act as devil's advocate because I take a different view to both the Minister and Deputy Stagg.

He is old fashioned.

No, he is a new man.

Not that either. I can see some merit in the subsection in so far as articles, memorandums and objects of a company are ideals, just as a manifesto is an ideal. In the real world, which is more difficult, it does not always work out ideally. To give criminal or civil litigation sanction for this, as opposed to where someone robbed money or perpetrated a fraud or was negligent in some way, is another category of crime. One could argue that one is really asking for sanction to be there for ideals as opposed to specific legal matters and to that extent I agree with the subsection.

I am pressing the amendment because I think the Minister will accept it in the Seanad.

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

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 19, line 29, before "appropriate" to insert "temporarily".

Section 26(1) states:

The company may appropriate any part of an airport vested in it by section 14 or owned or managed by the company in accordance with section 16 to the use of any person for the purposes of any trade, profession or other activity in consideration of the payment to it of such charges and in accordance with such conditions as the company considers reasonable.

This amendment would prevent this section being used as a vehicle or a licence to sell airport ground permanently. We dealt with that matter elsewhere in the Bill. The word "temporarily" should be inserted before the word "appropriate". That is the basis of my amendment. The Minister said she would look at this on Report Stage.

Section 26 provides a legal basis for the company's practice of allowing business entities concessions or leasing them space so they may conduct their businesses at State airports. All such legal agreements entered into by the company are limited to three years. That is the limit under which those leases are granted. In the course of the debate Deputy Yates said he knew from personal experience of cases that would apply if one had an office or another property.

Section 56 exempts the company from the provisions of the landlord and tenant Acts. Therefore, there is no question of lettings becoming permanent rights of the lessees due to the length of the lease which, at three years, is of a temporary nature. Neither are they subject to the provisions of the landlord and tenant Acts.

The duration of the leases has changed to four years and nine months.

I am negotiating one at the moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 20 has already been discussed with amendment No. 16.

Amendment No. 20 not moved.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 20, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

"(5) Not less than one-third of the directors of any subsidiary shall be persons appointed to be directors of the company under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 to 1993, who are willing to accept office, and every person who is appointed to be a director of a subsidiary under this subsection shall hold office as such director for such period as may be determined by the company with the approval of the Minister at the time of the appointment.".

This is probably the most important amendment I have tabled today.

No, the double whammy was.

While that was important the Minister dealt with it very well. If she deals with this amendment as well I will be very pleased.

Essentially, we are setting up powers for the company to have subsidiaries and to have their core activity included in subsidiaries. I would envisage a situation where a subsidiary of Aer Rianta would run Dublin Airport, with other subsidiaries for Shannon and Cork. That is certainly possible and in that situation worker directors should be represented on the boards of the subsidiaries. My request is that not less than one-third of board members should be worker directors. That is the standard formula for worker directors. I know the Minister's sympathies lie in the direction of this amendment and I hope she can be as positive about it as she was with the double whammy amendment.

There is a very long answer to this but I will try to encapsulate it.

I presume that if it is a long answer it means the answer is "no".

It is half "yes" and half "no". I will explain the options and we should look at them. On Committee Stage I included an amendment to reinforce the de facto position that three of the directors of the main company should be worker directors. As we know, this position has already been legislated for in the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts. The Deputy's amendment seeks to provide that worker directors would be appointed to subsidiaries. If the intent of the Bill was to devolve the core functions of the company into operating subsidiaries then the amendment would make eminent sense. The intent of the Bill, however, is not to devolve the core functions of Aer Rianta into operating subsidiaries.

Is it not?

The core business of the company is not being devolved, indeed, anything but. However, on Committee Stage I undertook to look at it in connection with the two subsidiaries, Great Southern Hotels and Aer Rianta International. Schedule I of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act provides for participation by workers in consultation processes known as sub-board participation. Great Southern Hotels is already listed under Schedule I, thus ensuring that Great Southern workers may participate in consultation processes. The normal provision for State company subsidiaries already applies in the case of Great Southern Hotels under legislation and is listed under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act.

Aer Rianta International is not listed under that Act simply because this subsidiary company was only established in late 1988. The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Bill became an Act earlier that year. Schedule II of the Act lists those State companies to which worker directors should be appointed. Aer Rianta is listed under Schedule II and three worker directors currently sit on the company's board. That is the amendment we agreed to.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has advised me that at present no subsidiaries of State enterprises are included under Schedule II. To add either Aer Rianta International or Great Southern Hotels to Schedule II would be breaking new ground. Perhaps we will see how this could be done under industrial relations legislation.

Aer Rianta International is in an unusual position in that its staff of 100 or more are largely at managerial level. They have not sought direct representation on the subsidiary board. However, the current practice is that Aer Rianta's own three worker directors are appointed to the board of Aer Rianta International by the chairman and I want to see that practice continued. This subsidiary did not exist when Schedule I of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act was last revisited in 1988. If the staff of Aer Rianta International express a wish for their company to be added to Schedule I, I would support that, as would the management of the company. I would request that an amendment to the Schedule be made by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is for that Department to adopt appropriate regulations. If I received a joint request from Aer Rianta International's staff and management I would put it to the Minister.

Such orders have been made in the past; when Irish Fertilizer Industries took over the core operating functions of its parent company NET, and in the case of Team Aer Lingus.

In 1995, even though there was no statutory requirement to do so, SIPTU was invited by the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, to nominate a staff representative to the board of Great Southern Hotels. The workers of the day made their case to the then Minister. An employee representative was selected by GSH workers and appointed to the board of GSH. As I have already pointed out, Great Southern Hotels is already a specified body for sub-board structures but the other company is not.

I now come to the options for legislating for worker directors on subsidiaries. If the Minister of the day wanted to give workers in GSH and ARI a greater degree of representation at board level the Minister, with the agreement of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, could opt either to include GSH and ARI under Schedule II, thereby allowing for direct elections by workers in those subsidiaries to the board, or to allow workers in GSH and ARI to participate in the election of worker directors to the board of Aer Rianta itself, giving them a direct voice in the people then elected to the main board.

The second choice would, perhaps, be the correct one in that regard. If that is the case, there are two options. I could request the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to make an appropriate order implementing the change under the worker participation legislation — her intention to do so could be outlined on Report Stage in the Dáil and Opposition amendments would then not be accepted — or the Minister could, with the agreement of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, implement the necessary change by means of a Government amendment to this Bill.

I have discussed this matter with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and it has been suggested that an appropriate amendment could be prepared in time for Committee Stage of this Bill in the Seanad. It seems logical to use the procedures provided under the worker participation legislation to allow the workers in GSH and ARI to participate in the election of worker directors to the board of Aer Rianta. This seems to be the least complex solution and, therefore, the one which should be accepted.

Is the Minister promising to introduce an amendment in the Seanad?

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and I talked in a desultory fashion about this matter some weeks ago. Unfortunately, I was not able to contact her recently to discuss it in more detail. There are two options. We can introduce an amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad, which would be more complex, or the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and I could give workers in GSH and ARI a vote in the election.

Which option will the Minister choose?

I do not know yet because I have not discussed it with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

Is the Minister promising to do one or the other?

I welcome the Minister's statement and I appreciate her genuine intentions. However, I also know how busy she is and the size and complexity of her Department. I am fearful that once this matter leaves the Dáil today, particularly if it goes to the Seanad without a definite decision being made, it will be put on the back burner and other urgent matters will be attended to. Perhaps the Minister could be more forthcoming, although I appreciate the difficulties in doing so.

I am not just fearful about Aer Rianta International but I am convinced that it is possible under this legislation, although it may not be its intention, to hive off the core activities of Aer Rianta to subsidiaries. If that is the case, we could have worker directors on the main board of Aer Rianta with no effective role because it might only be an umbrella board for a number of subsidiaries carrying out the core activities of the company. I am anxious that the Minister be more specific before we leave this issue today because I am conscious of the danger of moving on to other Bills and crises and forgetting about it.

There are two options. The first is to request the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to make a ministerial order which would allow the workers of the subsidiaries to participate in the election of worker directors to the board of Aer Rianta. That seems to be the most simple method of doing it.

The Minister might not do that.

She could be requested to make an appropriate order implementing the change under the worker participation legislation. The matter must be dealt with through consultation with the Minister responsible for worker participation legislation. The second option is to implement the necessary change by means of a Government amendment to the Bill. The first option is better. I accept the Deputy might think that as time goes on it will not be done. However, I give a commitment that it will be done. Is the Deputy willing to accept that?

I will accept that.

I would prefer if an amendment was introduced in the Seanad because the Minister would be answerable for such a commitment. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is not here to make a commitment; she will only introduce an order.

On foot of what the Minister said, I will withdraw my amendment. However, I will table the first parliamentary question to remind her of this issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 20, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:

"(5) The Chief Executive shall be ex officio a director of the company.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 20, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:

30. —Not later than 6 months after the end of each accounting year of the company, the company shall make a report in writing to the Minister of its activities and those of its subsidiaries during that year and the Minister shall lay copies of the report before each House of the Oireachtas.".

This amendment restores a provision deleted from the scheme that the board as a whole, not just the chairperson, should make an annual report. The Minister said the chairman might have sensitive information to report to the Minister which should not be published, which is acceptable. However, the section as drafted fails to provide for a public annual report from the company. The chairman should continue to report confidential matters to the Minister. This section will require the board to lay copies of the report before each House of the Oireachtas. This will enhance the reporting mechanism and help to narrow the democratic deficit.

I agree with the amendment.

I am sure every Deputy will get a copy of the annual report after today's meeting. Is the Deputy saying the annual report is not published?

The amendment states the "company shall make a report in writing to the Minister of its activities and those of its subsidiaries during that year".

Separate to the annual report.

There are two reports. The first is the annual general report which everyone receives. There is great competition now to see which company publishes the glossiest one. In fact, an industry has grown from it. The second is the chairman's report which is sent to the Minister.

The board should also report to the Minister. We have had situations where it would have been highly desirable to have a report from the board where it was in conflict with the chairperson. It is also highly desirable for the chairperson to report to the Minister.

The chairperson reports to the Minister.

I am not excluding that.

We are looking for transparency in the report.

In the written report to the Minister?

I am referring to the board's report to the Minister, not the chairperson's report.

I call that the chairperson's report.

The chairperson's report is to the Minister only.

Does the Deputy also want the board to send a report to the Minister?

It would be available to us also.

The annual general report is published and the chairman's report is sent to the Minister, which appears to be confidential. I do not see any difference between what is in it and the annual general report. Some chairpersons have difficulty trying to think up something different for the confidential report to the Minister. The report might outline events which are anticipated in the year ahead and include detailed information. The Deputy wants the board, as distinct from the chairperson, to send a report to the Minister.

Yes and that it would not be confidential.

When the chairman presents his report to me, I accept he is acting in good faith with the board. In the annual general report he is shown as chairman of the board. When he or she writes to me, I presume it is from a position as chairperson of the board and in full confidence of board members. I do not understand what the Deputy is saying and why I should get another report.

In my limited experience as a Minister of State I found it useful to get a report from the chairperson of companies. It was different and distinct from the annual report which was published. Much of the information in that report would have been valuable to the Opposition and other Members. This information was not of a confidential nature and was not contained in the annual report. I suggest the board should also report to the Minister in a non-confidential form which could be laid in the Library of the House and available to Members. This would open up the debate and allow transparency to work and be seen to work. That is effectively what I am saying. I am not cutting across the function of the chairman telling secrets to the Minister if necessary.

They do not tell me any. When the annual general report is published it contains a picture of the chairman and his or her board. I assume the annual report is coming from the chairman and the board. I have not differentiated because I have the other report which is personal to me and marked confidential. I assume the annual report, which contains the chairman's report, is from the chairman. It also contains a photograph of the chief executive and all the others. I assume the chairman and the board are conveying their message to me and the wider public through its publication.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 22, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

"(2) On the vesting day of the company the existing full rights, benefits and entitlements of all existing employees of Aer Rianta shall be fully preserved and enhanced in any superannuation scheme established under this section.".

Is there a letter of guarantee?

No, neither comfort nor guarantee.

Are amendments Nos. 24 and 25 being taken together? On Committee Stage the Minister promised she would try to deal with this matter in better legal language. I notice they are not being taken together, are they dealing with separate points?

They are dealing with superannuation. We can take them together.

Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are taken together? Agreed.

On Committee Stage I suggested that whatever rights Aer Rianta staff had as an agent to the Minister they would have under the new legal framework. I do not say that my amendment is a work of art in legalese but the Minister promised to come up with something which would give the same legal guarantee. On the TEAM Aer Lingus vote, I was shocked to learn the reason the 4l per cent in favour was not higher was due to confusion over the superannuation and pension scheme. It would be extraordinary if FLS was not prepared to guarantee the pension scheme. When I raised this matter with union officials I was told this was misinformation and that they had been given guarantees. It is difficult to understand how after five months that matter was not spelt out. If one is trying to sell something, it is the height of incompetence if the facts are not made clear. This is not a subjective matter, it is a black and white issue and it is extraordinary that that should be an issue.

On Committee Stage I undertook to have the matter examined and to come back on it. On TEAM and the pensions issue I am concerned that there is confusion. When I met the employees on the morning of 16 or 17 December and management in the afternoon, I asked for the most open discussions and the fullest information to be given to whatever was requested. Irrespective of the answer and whether it was thought well of they should have had the facts. Whether that remains the situation I do not know but it appears from what I hear and what I have been told that there is confusion about pension rights — and I mentioned this last night. The union representative on "Prime Time" was of the opinion that there had been the fullest explanations. It seems there are different variations of what was said.

Amendment No. 25 is a technical Government amendment and will serve to clarify the definitions. The staff of Aer Rianta and its subsidiaries participate in three pension schemes. The bulk of the staff of Aer Rianta and its subsidiaries are members of the Irish airlines general employees scheme, a joint scheme with Aer Lingus. Two of the Aer Rianta subsidiaries, i.e. Aer Rianta International and Great Southern Hotels Limited have set up pension schemes.

Section 32 is an enabling provision. It will allow for the future establishment of a new pension scheme for employees of Aer Rianta if and when agreement is reached on such a change. This means that the approved provisions in section 32 will apply to all relevant pension schemes involving staff of Aer Rianta and its subsidiaries. However, if and when a new separate pension scheme is established for Aer Rianta staff only, those staff will transfer out of the joint scheme and into a new scheme. The staff of Aer Rianta International and Great Southern Hotels Limited schemes will remain in their own separate scheme. I am informed that this is the one that best accords with what the Deputy had suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 24, to delete lines 40 to 45 and substitute the following:

"‘the old scheme' means the scheme for the granting of superannuation benefits, to or in respect of any members of the staff of the company or a subsidiary of the company (other than Aer Rianta International cuideachta phoiblí theoranta or Great Southern Hotels Limited), in operation at the commencement of this Act and includes, where the context so admits, a reference to that scheme as amended by a scheme to which subsection (6) relates.".

Amendment agreed to.

We come to amendment No. 26. Amendment No. 27 is cognate. I suggest amendments Nos. 26 and 27 be taken together.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 25, lines 6 to 8, to delete "section 15 (inserted by section 7 of the European Parliament Elections Act, 1993) of the European Assembly Elections Act, 1977," and substitute "section 19 of the European Parliament Elections Act, 1977,".

My legal-eyed assistant noticed an error which was referenced to a Bill that had been repealed in the Minister's draft and it is corrected by this amendment and amendment No. 27 in two different places.

I met him one night and I said he was doing a great deal of work on this Bill. I thank the Deputy for the amendment which will correct the text and give a more up-to-date reference to the European Parliament legislation. I recommend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 25, lines 17 to 19, to delete "section 15 (inserted by section 7 of the European Parliament Elections Act, 1993) of the European Assembly Elections Act, 1977," and substitute "section 19 of the European Parliament Elections Act, 1997,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 26, line 42, after "who" to insert "knowingly".

I am hopeful the Minister will accept this amendment also which deals with penalties for breach of confidentiality. Section 34(6) states that: "A person who fails to comply with this section shall be guilty of an offence". One could inadvertently be guilty of an offence. I suggest we insert the word "knowingly". On Committee Stage the Minister indicated that "knowingly" was not a legally correct word and that perhaps some other word could be used. It would then read: "a person who knowingly fails to comply with this section shall be guilty of an offence". I ask the Minister to accept it.

I recall this discussion because I thought "knowingly" was giving the person a leeway they should not have because they should know in any event. They could plead "knowingly" when in actual fact they had known and were able to escape under it. The word "knowingly" gives too much leeway. I am not suggesting that anybody on State boards is transgressing. It would give leeway for a transgression if they could plead "knowingly". It is erring too much on the side of the person on the board.

I agree with Deputy Stagg because in terms of tax law, evasion of tax, etc., the word "knowingly" is frequently spattered throughout our criminal law and it strikes me that the criminal sanction in this regard should be on the basis of someone deliberately doing this.

I am concerned about the inadvertent breach of confidence, which could easily happen.

A breach of confidence in what way? Does the Deputy mean outside the board?

A person could get drunk and say something.

At the board meeting?

After it.

In the Dáil bar.

A person could get drunk anywhere that sells drink legally. I am concerned about the inadvertent breach. I though the Minister indicated on Committee Stage that the existing wording was very harsh, and I knew she was concerned about the word "knowingly" in case a person simply said they did not know and that would let them off the hook. It certainly does not let them off the hook in another sense because they have to prove that they did not knowingly do something. The inadvertent breach of the regulation is causing the problem and it seems harsh that an inadvertent breach would be a criminal offence. I ask the Minister to examine what is contained in other legislation and perhaps it might be considered in the Seanad.

It refers in the main to potential clashes of interest on a board when matters are being discussed. If such a clash of interest arises, a board member must remove himself or herself from the concerns of the board at that meeting. I am sure that happens quite often. Board members know what their interests are and whether there is likely to be a conflict of interests. I am not inclined to be as kind to board members as suggested in the amendment but I will examine it again in the Seanad and the Deputy can speak to his Members if he feels there is some word we could use.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We now move to amendment No. 29. Amendment No. 33 is related and it is proposed that we discuss Nos. 29 and 33 by agreement.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 27, line 27, after "authorised" to insert "or required by law or".

This amendment makes clear that any disclosure required by law will not be prohibited by this section. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

I ask the Minister to accept either of these two amendments. On Committee Stage she was supportive of this dialogue within the enterprise whereby employees made their suggestions and there was good dialogue between management and unions. This constructive participation, as it is called in Aer Rianta, should not be inhibited by people believing they are breaching internal secrets. I ask the Minister to allow latitude so that this dialogue would be unfettered by legal sanction and ask her to accept one or other of the amendments.

This provision is not meant to muzzle people or disrupt good employee-employer communications. It is intended to protect the company, its employees and their jobs by preventing damaging leaks of sensitive information. Sometimes that does not happen, as we know. To answer Deputy Yates, it may decide to change its name, although it is an excellent body which produced a very informative bulletin recently. To include the limiting factor of the name as it currently stands in the legislation might not be the correct way to proceed, although I know that is not really the thrust of what the Deputy is saying. It is an important safeguard that we would not encourage leaks of sensitive information. Members of the board have principles and obligations to the chairman, the board, the shareholders and to the country and in general those are upheld. I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe otherwise. To restrict this would not be the best way to proceed. I will not accept the amendments.

According to the Bill, a person shall not disclose confidential information obtained by him or her while performing duties as a director or member of staff of, adviser or consultant to, the company or a subsidiary of the company unless he or she is duly authorised by the company or the subsidiary, as the case may be, to do so. If that person is required by law to do so, they are in breach of this section unless we so state. If we include the words "authorised" or "required by law", that covers that situation. Many cases might arise where people are required by law to disclose information but we are excluding that possibility and a contradictory position will arise.

I will not accept either amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

We now move to amendment No. 30. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related so it is proposed that we discuss Nos. 30, 31 and 32 together. Agreed.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 28, line 12, after "Authority" to insert "and need not comply with the directive".

The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the regulations as drafted allow the company to disregard a directive that would compromise the safety of aircraft. The Minister indicated she would examine this matter on Report Stage.

This is the section which allows the Minister to give a written direction to the company about anything and the company will have to comply with it. I thought that type of thing died in Germany in 1945. If the Minister has such dictatorial powers I propose that a draft order be laid before this House so that the Dáil would have a say in regard to this. If we are to have a malign, meddling Minister——

The Deputy wants me to meddle. He wants me to know the pension scheme of every employee.

The Minister will be accountable to the Dáil. Therefore, Deputy Stagg is saying the company can tell the Minister to go to hell.

That is what they do anyway.

I am saying in this case that the Dáil would have some say in it.

If the Deputy recalls, this came out of the issue of safety as he can see in section 38(2). We dwelt on the safety aspect of it for a good while on Committee Stage and I looked it up when we were going over this.

This is a standard provision in semi-State companies, but I was concerned by the difficulties encountered with the current working of section 38. If the company considers that a direction given by the Minister may adversely affect the safety of aircraft, it is obliged to inform the Minister and the Irish Aviation Authority. Following the comments and the debate on Committee Stage, I have reconsidered the matter and have decided to table amendment No. 31. It will ensure the Minister will give due consideration to any information submitted by the company under this section. The Minister may then use such information in amending or revoking any ministerial directive to the company.

This limited power of the Minister is standard in all legislative provisions for semi-State bodies. It is necessary given the essential and central nature of the services provided by the semi-State sector. It is a recognition that there are occasions when it is necessary for the Government, acting in the best interests of the State, to have some means to direct a company to follow a general policy guideline.

While I can accept the legitimacy of the concerns raised, I do not accept that the amendments to section 38 would be appropriate. Amendment No. 30 suggests that the company need not comply with the ministerial direction. This would set a precedent for such provisions for all legislative measures.

I recommend to the House that we pursue amendment No. 31 as a halfway house between the other two.

Will the Minister explain in layman's language the effect of the Minister's amendment?

Yes. It ensures that due regard will be given to any submissions regarding safety made by the company in the context of a ministerial direction. However, the company will still be obliged to comply with the direction given by the Minister. It is a kind of each way bet.

They can exchange letters but the decision will be the same.

It is an each way bet on the matter.

I am concerned about a typical situation which might arise at Shannon Airport. Since the foundation of the airport, a search and rescue service has been provided where a boat, which is owned by the Department and operated by the security personnel in the airport, was successfully engaged in a number of incidents. The record of Shannon Airport has been unique. It is probably one of the safest airports in the world and great credit is due to all concerned. Nevertheless, there is deep concern that in a rationalisation of search and rescue services there may be some decision by the company to terminate or curtail some of the operations of the search and rescue service, especially in relation to the provision of the search and rescue launch to which I referred.

The Minister's amendment is the one which probably covers the case where there might be an attempt by the company to curtail or terminate such a service. It is an instance where the Minister would need to be in a position to give a direction and that should be maintained.

Safety is the issue; the Minister is quite correct. My amendment tried to provide that where the Minister gave a stupid directive to the company, the company could ignore it if it compromised the safety of aircraft.

The Minister can receive submissions but would be in an impossible situation if he or she made a decision against advice that the safety of aircraft would be compromised as a result. I accept the Minister's amendment on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 28, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(3) The Minister shall, in amending or revoking a direction under this section, have regard to any information received by him or her under subsection (2).".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments No. 32 and 33 not moved.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 28, line 17, to delete "its airports" and substitute "a State airport".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 33, line 40, to delete ", an authorised officer" and substitute "an authorised officer,".

This is a typographical amendment to move a comma to the correct place.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 36, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"48. ——(1) Whenever the company is of opinion that the unrestricted use of a particular area of land in the vicinity of an airport owned or managed by it would interfere with the efficient operation or development of that airport, it may by order prohibit any person, save under and in accordance with a permit granted by the company, from erecting or adding to any building on the land specified in the order.

(2) The Minister shall make regulations to enable this section to have full effect.".

It is extraordinary that the Minister withdrew this section which removed the power from the airport authority to stop skyscrapers being built on land adjoining the airport which might be in the flight path. That could compromise safety in a serious way and compromise the future development of the airport. I do not know why it was withdrawn. As we were saying earlier, the same draftspeople were there then as now. Therefore, we must blame the Minister for its withdrawal.

This is definitely a provision which the Deputy had in his Bill. There is no doubt about that.

Why was it taken out?

Because the Bill was combed for that.

The Deputy is correct. The provision in Deputy Stagg's amendment is included in the scheme of the Bill. The making of protected area orders was seen to be one of the Minister's powers which was related to the Minister's power to establish and manage airports. The original intention was to transfer all such powers from the Minister to the company.

A concern was raised by the company during the drafting of the Bill that perhaps some speculators — there are names given but I would not give them in the House, but the Deputy would know to whom I am referring — might position themselves to abuse the provision if the powers to make protected area orders were transferred to the company. The company expressed the view that the Minister be regarded as less of a speculative target — I certainly would be in this respect — and asked that the status quo be maintained.

Following consideration within the Department, it is deemed that the protected area powers, if transferred to Aer Rianta, would represent a wide range of safety related powers to transfer to a commercial State body. In effect, an individual's rights in relation to private property could be limited by enabling the company to restrict development on land not owned by the company but adjacent to one of the airports. It was felt that such wide-ranging powers such not be granted to a company which was to operate with a commercial mandate at arms length from the Minister. With Government approval, the provision was deleted before publication of the Bill.

The Irish Aviation Authority comes into it, as the House will be aware. The Department has established a committee and intends to conduct a detailed examination of the entire regulatory regime for aviation safety. The review will clarify where exactly the final responsibility for making protected area orders should rest. We hope to have that soon and then the Irish Aviation Authority Act, 1993 may be amended. There is a conflict as to who is responsible for safety in certain areas. I propose that we go back to the broader question in a revision of the IAA legislation when the review committee has done its work. In the light of this debate and pending matters, it was decided to deal with it this way.

I am aware that the IAA can be developed into something of an independent republic. We should be conscious of that reality. Is the Minister saying that the powers that were to be in this section and that previously were held by Aer Rianta are being held by the Minister?

Pending the review on aviation safety which has been commenced, this amendment would be premature.

Are the powers that are required in this regard and that currently exist to make protective area orders retained by the Minister in the interim?

It is satisfactory that that power is retained. I will, therefore, withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 40 is an alternative to amendment No. 37. They will be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 38, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"52. —A person guilty of an offence of disruptive behaviour holding any risk to the safety of air passengers on board flights, shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.".

I thank the Minister for responding to my request with a brand new section which would not otherwise have been in the Bill. The Minister's amendment No. 40 provides for fines of £500 and £700. My amendment provides for fines of £5,000 and £20,000. I thank the Minister for her amendment because, in the course of this Bill it transpired that the two spokespersons were very nervous flyers, whatever about the Minister. Much better legal language has now been brought forward in the Minister's amendment. It will be an offence now to be so drunk on a plane as to cause fear and apprehension to others. I very much welcome that for the first time this will be a criminal offence. In addition, where someone engages in behaviour that is likely to cause serious offence to a person on board an aircraft, either crew or fellow passengers, that will be an offence.

Recent cases of this got prominent publicity inside and outside the jurisdiction. It really is not funny when someone goes berserk and air hostesses, who are used to the rough and tumble of flying, are terrified in a situation where nobody can leave because the plane is in mid-air. These are serious matters and I do not regard £500 as an adequate fine. I am glad it is being treated as an offence, but this matter might not be reviewed for another ten or 20 years. Someone who can afford the price of a flight to New York could easily pay a fine of £500 with a credit card. I would like to put a sting in the tail here and make the fine £1,000. Where somebody engages in violent behaviour, is threatening, abusive or insulting, where we are dealing with a breach of the peace, £700 is not enough. I am glad a prison sentence of four months has been included. Even if the Minister does not accept my proposal to have a higher fine, which I ask her to consider, I thank her for her amendment because I want it to go out loud and clear from this House that truculent behaviour of any kind on board an aircraft is not acceptable and is now a separate offence in its own right. Now that we have cheaper fares, some people flying to functions and matches or coming to Dublin for the weekend for stag parties, hen parties etc., feel they can behave like lager louts, take too much to drink and be abusive to cabin crew or violent to someone who is unfortunate enough to be beside them. In a situation where people are apprehensive and nervous at the best of times — some people have to have medication to calm themselves before a flight — that is just not tolerable. I am glad the Minister and her officials have responded so sensitively and rapidly to what I have proposed. I will be happy to withdraw amendment No. 37 but I ask the Minister to go that little bit further by including higher fines.

It is thanks to the Deputies who contributed that this amendment has been introduced. The fact that they tabled an amendment provoked us to think about it more deeply. I applaud their motivation, the action they took and the effect it will have. People object to how long Committee Stages can take. We have all muttered about that. However, it shows that a properly researched Bill put forward with amendments can have a huge effect if everybody, Minister and Deputies, put their backs into it. It is an appalling vista to be subjected to abusive and threatening behaviour in a confined space from which one cannot get out and in which one has little room to move. People can very quickly look the other way and not do anything about it. We spent a lot of time reading about this and we wanted a provision that could be implemented quickly. This amendment went to Cabinet where we had a debate on it and two or three members mentioned things they saw happen on planes — this is one of those matters that leads to a good discussion. We took advice from the Attorney General that a fine of £500 be imposed for intoxication, that disorderly conduct be made a direct offence and a similar fine applied. In current law disorderly conduct becomes an offence only if persisted in having been requested by a member of the Garda Síochána to desist. One might not be lucky enough to have a member of the Garda Síochána on the plane so that had to be changed. The offence of threatening behaviour will attract a fine of £700 or four months' imprisonment or both which is an increase from £500 and three months respectively in the current law. This has the merit of making use of existing provisions of criminal justice and aviation legislation with only minor modifications. That was advised by the Attorney General, and it allows for speedy implementation as part of the Bill. If it proves necessary to revisit this matter then a more formal consideration of the issues over a longer timescale can be undertaken. It was the Attorney General's office which came up with a direct way to approach this problem. I applaud the motivation and civic——

What about the higher fines?

I suppose in time but I must go with the advice I was given by the Attorney General.

The Minister might consider it in the Seanad.

I am sure it will arise in future debates. I am glad of this amendment.

I compliment Deputy Yates and the Minister on this amendment. As I said on Committee Stage, I would do anything but fly. Rowdiness on an aircraft makes life considerably worse for nervous flyers. That the Minister convinced the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to agree to an amendment is an overwhelming victory. That is one of the most difficult things any Minister could do.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 39 is an alternative to amendment No. 38.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 39, to delete lines 4 to 10 and substitute the following:

57. —Stamp duty shall not be payable in respect of the transfer of an amount from a fund established in respect of a scheme for the granting of superannuation benefits in operation at the commencement of this Act to a fund established under and in accordance with section 32.".

Deputy Stagg also noticed the anomaly in the Bill. The Deputy has some sharp cookie with him. Section 12 of the 1985 Finance Act was repealed in this year's first Finance Act leading to the need for an amendment to section 37.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 41, after line 40, to insert the following:

65. —The Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1973, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following section:

‘2A. (1) A person on board an aircraft in flight who is intoxicated to such extent as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he or she is likely to endanger the safety of himself or herself or the safety of others on board the aircraft shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person on board an aircraft in flight who, without justification, engages in behaviour that is likely to cause serious offence or annoyance to any person on board the aircraft, at any time after having been requested by a member of the crew of the aircraft to cease such behaviour, shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person on board an aircraft in flight who engages in behaviour of a threatening, abusive or insulting nature whether by word or gesture with intent to cause a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace might be occasioned shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall—

(a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1) or (2), be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500, or

(b) in the case of an offence under subsection (3), be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £700 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 months, or to both.'.".

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 40:

In page 38, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"52. —A person guilty of an offence of disruptive behaviour holding any risk to the safety of air passengers on board flights, shall be liable—

(i)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.".

Question, "That the figures proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment to the amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 40 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 41, after line 40, to insert the following:

65. —With effect from one year following the passing of this Act, the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, shall apply to the company and its subsidiaries as if each of them stood prescribed pursuant to regulations made by the Minister for Finance for the purposes of paragraph 1(5) of the First Schedule to that Act.".

This amendment applies the Freedom of Information Act to the company. I do not know why it should be otherwise.

The Freedom of Information Act will have a great effect and we had all better gear up for it. The Act is designed to enable the phased application of freedom of information to the public service on the following basis: all Government Departments and 50 Government offices——

Is it true the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Brennan, will be made a doctor of letters —à la TEAM?

He was very exercised to ensure that it was a point of honour which should be followed through. The workers had gone from Aer Lingus over to TEAM. From 21 October 1998 local authorities and health boards will come within the scope of the Act. In addition, the First Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act provides for the inclusion of bodies in the wider public service and those in receipt of public funding by regulation made by the Minister for Finance. The Freedom of Information Act gives powers to the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Public Enterprise, to decide whether it would be appropriate to extend the scope of the Act to State bodies. It is intended that the incremental application, the same as we had before, across the wider public service will be informed by experience gained at central Government level over the coming period. This broad, phased approach was accepted by the last Government when the relevant Government documents were being passed on Freedom of Information. When it had developed and brought forward the legislation it had agreed on the phased development.

We take the liberty to change our minds all the time.

Any future proposal to extend the application of the Freedom of Information Act to commercial State bodies will be carefully considered. These companies increasingly find themselves operating in direct competition with private sector firms. If they are to have a fair chance it behoves us as legislators not to burden the commercial State companies with obligations that do not equally apply to their private sector competitors. The Act is structured and designed to include a phased application. This matter was discussed when the Bill was brought to Cabinet. I do not know what was discussed at Cabinet but the result was that the Act would be applied in a phased manner. I cannot go against that decision for the commercial semi-State companies.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported, with amendments and received for final considerations.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

This Bill had uncommonly good Second, Committee and Report Stages. I thank the main Opposition spokespersons, Deputies Yates and Stagg. I also thank Deputy Daly and others who had a great interest in the Bill because of where they come from. It was a most interesting debate during all Stages. There were many Opposition amendments which I was glad to be able to accept after thought and consideration. No one should say one person or Department has the wisdom. I thank Mr. Matt Benville and other civil servants who were in the House on different occasions. They put up with all my questions and demands. We all worked co-operatively on this Bill. You would also have an interest in the Bill, Acting Chairman, because of your own background. It was a good few days' work and I look forward to the debate in the Seanad.

I thank the Minister for her comments and co-operation throughout the passage of the Bill.

Likewise.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Top
Share