Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jul 2014

Vol. 847 No. 2

State Airports (Shannon Group) Bill 2014 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed)

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:

In page 28, to delete lines 20 to 38, to delete pages 29 and 30, and in page 31, to delete lines 1 to 33.

- (Deputy Dessie Ellis)

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar)

Amendment No. 4, from Deputy Clare Daly, is new and I will not accept it. The amendment seeks to delete section 34 from the Bill and substitute it with a new section under which the airport authorities could establish new pension schemes only if they replicated the benefits under the existing IASS. We have been over this ground a number of times. If the amendment were to prove acceptable to the House, there would be no need to accept the original section 32 of the 1998 Act, which the amendment replicates. As I said before, the provisions of section 34 do not anticipate or pre-empt whatever solution the parties may come up with. This could even include a continuation of the current IASS if, somehow, the deficit in the scheme could be made to disappear. The Bill does not preclude this outcome no matter how unlikely it is. It does, however, allow for other possible outcomes to the discussions which, if we are being realistic and honest, are more probable than a continuation of the current scheme. The amendment would facilitate none of these more probable and realistic outcomes and would in all likelihood represent an insurmountable barrier to the parties' wish to implement any solution agreed by them.

Among the amendments I have tabled today, only amendments Nos. 10 and 13 are substantive. Amendment No. 10 provides that under section 32B(1) the trustees would have the power to amend the provisions of the IASS scheme to cease any further accrual of benefits under the scheme and simultaneously to cease the contribution liability of both members and employers. They will also have the power to make any other changes that are consequential upon any amendment they make in this regard. The exercise of these powers is subject to a commencement order, which I introduced on Committee Stage last week.

As I have already explained in detail the background and rationale for the decision, I will not repeat it. The trustees requested that in association with these powers provision should be included in the Bill for making it clear that if and when these powers are exercised, the trustees in the scheme will have no obligation to provide benefits under the scheme in respect of future service. While this is self-evident within subsection (1), I have no difficulty providing the further clarification contained in the amendment, which also requires that the trustees act honestly and reasonably when exercising their powers under the subsection.

Amendment No. 13 applies to statutory revaluation as provided for in section 33 of the Pensions Act 1990. On the IASS in the context of the particular proposals which are the subject of current discussions among the parties to resolve the difficulties of the scheme I have been at pains to express, here and in the Seanad, that the provisions in section 34 do not anticipate or pre-empt whatever solution the parties agree to the problems of the scheme.

This amendment is, however, designed to facilitate the implementation of a particular aspect of the potential solution which is currently under discussion by the parties on foot of the recommendations of the expert panel. Those discussions are centred on the expert panel's recommendations of mid-June which are in turn linked to the trustees' proposal of last February and the Labour Court's recommendation of May 2013. These proposals are referred to as "freeze and de-risk". The freeze element of the proposals refers to freezing the benefits accrued to the members while the de-risk aspect relates to the adoption of an investment strategy which seeks to minimize investment risks. An aspect of the freeze element of the proposals is the removal of the impact of statutory revaluation on preserved benefits so that future liabilities of the scheme can be locked down. This requires the disapplication of statutory revaluation as currently provided for under section 33 of the Pensions Act 1990. The amendment will give effect to such disapplication. However, under the amendment, revaluation cannot be disapplied in isolation from a decision by the trustees to cease contributions and benefit accruals under subsection (1)(a). This is a prerequisite for the disapplication of revaluation. In addition, I am making the operation of the amendment subject to a separate commencement order which is catered for in amendment No. 14.

These safeguards will ensure that revaluation under the Pensions Act will continue as normal unless its disapplication forms part of an overall solution to the problems of the IAS scheme. It will also ensure that active and deferred members of the scheme are treated on an equal basis at all times by the trustees, which is a measure requested by Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The provision is being introduced to facilitate the implementation of a particular element of the overall proposal currently under discussion by the parties. This relates to neutralising the impact of future statutory revaluation. If for any reason it does not ultimately materialise as part of the final agreed solution, the provision will not be commenced. On the other hand, I want to ensure that there is no legislative barrier to any resolution of the IAS scheme's difficulties agreed among the parties.

All of my remaining proposed amendments to section 34 are technical or represent drafting improvements. These amendments include amendments Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, and 11 and 12. To clarify matters raised during our earlier discussion on the expert panel's proposal, I note that Deputy Daly is correct to say the €200 million being offered by Aer Lingus and the DAA will go into a new scheme for active and deferred members not the IAS scheme, which will be frozen and de-risked. Pensioners who may face a cutback in their benefits will also not put money into the scheme. They will simply be taking less out of the scheme.

Deputy Daly questioned some of the investment decisions of the trustee. As I explained on Committee Stage, my Department has neither the authority nor the competencies to second guess investment decisions made by a pension fund. Pensions policy is a matter for the Department of Social Protection and we have the Pensions Ombudsman and the Pensions Authority. It is not for us to argue about the rights and wrongs of investment decisions made. In any case, such decisions are not reversible. Many people would like to have made different decisions. There are many who would have liked to have bought their homes at a different time or who would have liked to have bought different shares or none at all. Once those decisions are made, however, they are not reversible and we must deal with the situation as we find it rather than as we might wish it to be.

It is indeed the case that Aer Lingus has reduced its staff numbers by half in recent years. As a result of that and other reasons, the company has become very profitable. The converse is true that for a long period it was very unprofitable in part because it was heavily overstaffed. Had it not been a State-owned enterprise or had it been another airline, there would have been compulsory redundancies rather than generous exit packages for those who decided to leave.

To reply to Deputy Ellis, what is proposed is to eliminate the deficit. That involves reductions in benefits for all concerned. This means reductions in payments in line with the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2013, a 20% cut, a removal of unco-ordination for those who did not pay for it, and the removal of the effect of statutory revaluation for active and deferred members. The companies have made a significant contribution for active members and propose to do the same for the deferred members. On the specific issue of revaluation, the amendment is being included in legislation as it is an important component in the overall freeze and de-risk proposal from the trustees to solve these difficulties. It means that if the expert panel's proposals are accepted, it will be possible to inform the deferred members as to what pension they will get when they start to draw down rather than making it subject to revaluation. It gives those members who are currently deferred members a clear statement of what pension they will receive.

Deputy Daly raised the issue of a rule change to the pension scheme. I have checked up on that since we discussed the matter on Committee Stage and confirmed that in order to make a rule change to the pension scheme, the agreement of the trustees, employers and a majority of the members would be required. While I do not think it would be practical in this case to get an agreement to cease payments, I agree that it is not impossible. Certainly, it would be very difficult to achieve what we are trying to achieve in that way, however. We can achieve it through legislation while allowing those who currently pay into the scheme to cease to do so if they so wish, which is what airport workers have balloted heavily to do.

There were some questions from Deputy Mathews, Daly and others on fifth freedoms. Fifth freedoms are rights conferred on carriers to fly beyond Ireland to pick up and drop off passengers between Ireland and a third country in which the carrier is registered or established. The draft policy proposes that Ireland's objective in bi-lateral negotiations would be to reach an agreement on the basis of fifth freedom rights on a reciprocal basis taking into account EU criteria on fair competition. Aviation policy is a national policy and proposals in respect of granting fifth freedom rights envisage that a liberal approach will be taken using a case-by-case assessment applying equally to all international airports in the State. I am not aware of any threat by any US carrier to pull out of Ireland. US carriers are very welcome here and do very well on their Irish routes. I am sure they will continue to remain on those routes as long as they are profitable.

This is not the major departure in policy that people think. We already have existing fifth freedom agreements with non-EU, non-US countries including Singapore and Qatar. Airlines flying from those countries can already avail of fifth freedom rights. What is intended here is to grant fifth freedom rights on a case-by-case basis. If a carrier wanted to pick up passengers in Dublin and fly them to New York, Chicago or San Francisco, we would not be particularly interested. Those routes already exist and are served by US carriers and Aer Lingus. However, should an airline seek to establish a new route which does not already exist, providing us with new connectivity, we would look at that very favourably. I understand that Aer Lingus and US carriers want to protect their position. It is entirely understandable. They do not want to face more competition. However, it is not my role as the Minister responsible for tourism and transport to represent only the interests of Irish or US airlines or a pilots' or other union. My job as Minister responsible for aviation and tourism is to promote the public interest and what is best for Ireland. If that means new routes and new connectivity, we should welcome those.

We have already benefited from Emirates and Etihad coming to Ireland. People have seen that. Deputy Daly referred to Ethiopian Airlines which has announced an intention to run a route from Dublin to Addis Ababa and from there to LA. Currently, we do not have a direct route to Africa at all nor do we have one to LA. It would be in the greater business and tourism interests of Ireland as a whole to have direct routes to Africa and LA. I do not want to refuse an airline offering to open new routes on the basis that Irish or American airlines operating other routes believe it would somehow damage their interests.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

For the Government to take these amendments together and not accept any Opposition amendments is disappointing. It is one of the reasons I am opposing section 34. I support Deputy Clare Daly in respect of amendment No. 4. In the interest of pensioners and deferred pensioners, I ask that a scheme with no negative impact on the pensioners be put in place. Pensions have already been cut severely, some by €40, and we reckon another €40 will be cut. The future of these people's pensions is crucial because some have been contributing for ten, 20, 30 or 40 years. Deferred members seem to suffer disproportionately and the contributions from the DAA and Aer Lingus do not seem enough. The Minister said that this is all that is on offer, but it is not enough. There is great uncertainty for many people. I am still waiting for answers from the Minister. A deferred member's pension could be cut by 50%. Can the Minister clarify whether this could happen? Some people are in receipt of a pension and many others will come into that position. People in this situation come to my constituency office. The Minister listened to me outlining one case and said such a scenario could happen. If it could happen, it would be a terrible blow to anyone. They could lose €25,000, or half of their pension pot. Some of these people have mortgages and others have bills to pay. They are in receipt of a very small pension. A woman who came in to talk to me about her husband was roaring crying. Members are in receipt of pensions and we know we will receive a certain amount for each term of office. If that were to be reduced, there would be uproar. It is unacceptable that Aer Lingus workers must face this.

Deputy Clare Daly

I appreciate the Minister's dealing with the draft national aviation policy, which is not on the agenda. I appreciate that he referred to it and is saying that where a route is in existence, that will not be open to non-EU or non-US carriers. Aer Lingus traditionally dealt with the Los Angeles route, so the Ethiopian development is worrying.

The Minister said that the appeal mechanism involved the option of the Pensions Ombudsman or the High Court and that the amendment proposed by Deputy Dessie Ellis was unnecessary. I do not accept that. The Pensions Ombudsman has told the deferred members group that it is nothing to do with that office. In the past couple of weeks, a ruling in Britain in the case of a British Airways pilot showed how difficult it is to get an adjudication on workers' interests from a pensions ombudsman. Is the Minister suggesting we will have 15,000 people taking a High Court case as a remedy to this when we could open the State's industrial relations machinery to retired workers? If we can let Kieran Mulvey adjudicate on Garth Brooks concerts, presumably pensioners and former employees should have the right to the State's labour relations mechanisms.

The approach of the Minister seems to be to shrug his shoulders at the unfortunate consequences of the mess that is the IAS scheme, as if it were something beyond anyone's control. The reason we are in this situation is down to the employers in the scheme and poor decisions made by the trustees. The Minister is preparing to give the trustees more power but we need an investigation into what went on. I do not accept the point that the pensioners are not contributing money but are just taking out less. Inevitably, that means they are leaving €110 million in the kitty, and existing pensioners, through the cuts being imposed on them, are the only group that have contributed cash to the scheme. The Minister has confirmed that the employers are keeping their money in a separate scheme to offset liabilities.

I reject the Minister's point that Aer Lingus was heavily overstaffed. Many of the functions traditionally undertaken by Aer Lingus staff were outsourced to third parties, many of which were without unions and had poor terms and conditions. This is not the way forward and has served to undermine the scheme. The freeze and de-risk strategy has undermined the asset base of the company because of the way the trustees made their decisions and there is irrefutable evidence that some of the decisions were at best questionable. There are severe connections, and if it is not the call of the Minister, the Department of Social Protection should investigate what went on.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

In conclusion, to respond to the comments of the Minister as Deputy Clare Daly did, historically the DAA and Aer Lingus, when it was a State entity, employed people to particular staff levels, often at the discretion and direction of the Government, because at times of high unemployment they were often seen as a way of dealing with a lack of economic activity in north County Dublin, parts of Cork and areas of Limerick and Clare. The Minister is right to say they were overstaffed, but that came as a result of State action. It was a legitimate expectation on the part of many of the workers. It is easy to talk about the companies as if they are separate entities and private companies. That is where they are going, particularly in the case of Aer Lingus, but much of the pension liability was built up when the State was the only shareholder, and it is still a significant shareholder. The State is the only shareholder in DAA. It is incumbent on the Government to address the legitimate expectation of the employees concerned. The appropriate course of action is to withdraw section 34 and allow other elements of legislation to establish an independent entity in Shannon before returning to deal with the pensions crisis in a comprehensive way in conjunction with the overall agreement put in place through the expert review group.

We must try to find an appropriate mechanism that will not overburden any group of pensioners in this regard. I do not want to rehash what we have said, but people are under severe financial strain and will remain so as a result of the decisions taken. It is incumbent on us to deal with the matter in a more careful way and I hope, even at this late stage, the Minister will consider withdrawing section 34.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I will add just a little to what has been said. On a number of occasions Deputy Dessie Ellis raised a question about a particular constituent, but it is impossible for me to comment on an individual case without knowing all the details. I am not in a position to do so.

From what I have seen of the proposals put together over time, whether by the expert panel, the Labour Court or the trustees, somebody who worked for 40 years at the airports or Aer Lingus will recieve a pension in the region of 40% or half of his or her end salary. Even after the cuts being proposed, people will still receive a pension of roughly half their end salary, provided they worked a full 40 years with the company. Therefore, even with the cuts, the pension is approximately the same as what a public servant will receive.

People may have had higher expectations and may have expected to receive a pension of 80% or 90% of their end salary, but people here do not receive such pensions . What they get, if they are lucky, is a pension roughly half of their end salary. That is what public servants receive and when this pension fund issue is resolved, the pension benefits will be in that ball park. Obviously, if a person only worked for ten or 15 years, he or she will not receive the same pension as someone who worked for the full 40 years.

Deputy Clare Daly has suggested today and previously that deferred members should have access to the industrial relations machinery of the State and the Labour Relations Commission. I understand they did have this access, but that it was removed at some point by legislation. I have not studied the issue of deferred pensions in detail and I am not the Minister responsible for labour affairs or enterprise matters, but on the face of it I believe the Deputy is probably correct that members of the scheme with deferred pensions should have access to these mechanisms. There is an opportunity to restore them through the just published Workplace Relations Bill which will bring together the Labour Relations Commission, the Rights Commissioners Service and the NERA. Perhaps this might be the appropriate mechanism to restore access. It cannot be done under the State airports Bill.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

From day one, I was very unhappy about how the Bill was being brought through the Houses. As it is a Bill dealing with the Shannon Group merger, the pensions issue should have been dealt with separately in a separate Bill. We should have been able to deal with it on its own because it has such far-reaching consequences for many people, many of whom invested heavily during the years.

The Minister has mentioned that many people do not realise they will not receive a full pension and, in many cases, will end up with a figure of only 50% or 60%. Anyone who invests in a pension scheme believes he or she will receive exactly what he or she is told he or she will get. In his response the Minister answered the question I put about a person with a deferred pension after three or four years or even sooner. He indicated he or she could end up losing half of his or her pension pot.

People have been hard done by and many good amendments have been brought forward. I am opposed to section 34 and believe we need to look at this issue more comprehensively and separately to dealing with a merger. We need to debate it more thoroughly. It was wrong to include it in the Bill.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 88; Níl, 41.

Tá

• Bannon, James.
• Barry, Tom.
• Breen, Pat.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burton, Joan.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Collins, Áine.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Connaughton, Paul J.
• Conway, Ciara.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coveney, Simon.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Ferris, Anne.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harrington, Noel.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Hogan, Phil.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Keating, Derek.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lawlor, Anthony.
• Lynch, Ciarán.
• Lyons, John.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McFadden, Gabrielle.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Murphy, Eoghan.
• Nash, Gerald.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Mahony, John.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reilly, James.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Stanton, David.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Varadkar, Leo.
• Wall, Jack.
• Walsh, Brian.

Níl

• Adams, Gerry.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Browne, John.
• Colreavy, Michael.
• Coppinger, Ruth.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Daly, Clare.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Fleming, Tom.
• Healy-Rae, Michael.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Keaveney, Colm.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Lowry, Michael.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McDonald, Mary Lou.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McLellan, Sandra.
• Martin, Micheál.
• Mathews, Peter.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Ross, Shane.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Troy, Robert.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Clare Daly and Dessie Ellis.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 cannot be moved.

Deputy Clare Daly

Why can it not be moved?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The note I have states that if the question on amendment No. 3 is agreed then amendment No. 4 cannot be moved. Does that make sense?

Deputy Clare Daly

No. The question on amendment No. 3 was about deleting lines in section 34, as it stands, whereas amendment No. 4 proposes to change section 34 into something else. It could not have been moved if amendment No. 3 had been accepted but it is perfectly valid now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand we cannot amend the question on amendment No. 3 because that is now dealt with and it stands.

Deputy Clare Daly

That would have been true if amendment No. 3 had been accepted but it was not accepted and the Minister's original section 34 stands. My motion seeks to amend his section 34 whereas the previous amendment sought to delete it in its entirety and that was not accepted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question I put to the House was: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." This means section 34 stands and it cannot be amended at this stage. My understanding is that if it is voted on and agreed then it stands. Section 34 cannot be amended subsequently.

Deputy Clare Daly

I find that rather strange but I will bow to your superior knowledge.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Can you explain that to me?

Deputy Clare Daly

I do not get it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question we voted on was: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." In other words, the question was on whether section 34 stands and we are not changing that.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

We have confirmed that section 34, as set down by the Minister, has been agreed by the House and, therefore, we cannot amend it because we have already accepted it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It covered down to and including certain words on page 30, line 24. That was what I read out and what we voted on.

Deputy Clare Daly

The Minister has amendments later, as do we. Our amendment was to delete the section. The House disagreed with that, which is fine. Now, we have a valid right, I believe, to amend the Minister's original section, as does the Minister, and he will do so presently.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question I put was: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand down to and including the provisions on page 30, line 24." The question put and voted on was specific. As a result we are saving amendment No. 5 in the Minister's name but we will come to that. My information is that amendment No. 4 cannot be moved and, therefore, I am moving on to the next amendment now.

Deputy Clare Daly

I am not hopeful that it will be carried and I had not intended pressing it to a vote but I am still unsure why the Minister can move an amendment to a section if we have agreed it but the Opposition cannot.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

If it is in order, I have no objection to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order according to my information.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 30, line 23, to delete “that” and substitute “the IAS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 30, lines 23 and 24, to delete “he or she had left service” and substitute “his or her service had terminated”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 30, line 24, to delete “pension” and substitute “benefit”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 31, lines 8 and 9, to delete “they had left service” and substitute “his or her service had terminated”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 31, line 10, to delete “pension” and substitute “benefit”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 31, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(2) Where the trustees of the IAS scheme, acting honestly and reasonably, exercise the powers conferred on them under subsection (1)(a), they and the IAS scheme shall be discharged from any obligation to provide benefits attributable to service in the IAS scheme on and after the date of cessation of accrual of benefits.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 31, line 22, to delete “(2) Where” and substitute “(3) Where”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 31, line 29, to delete “(3) In” and substitute “(4) In”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 31, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(5) Where the trustees of the IAS scheme exercise the powers conferred on them under subsection (1)(a), the revaluation of preserved benefits under the IAS scheme in accordance with section 33 of the Pensions Act 1990 shall cease and thereafter no further revaluation of IAS scheme benefits shall occur.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 31, to delete lines 31 and 32 and substitute the following:

“(6) Subsections (1) and (5) come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders either on the same day or, with reference to a particular subsection, on different days.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 31, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“32C. Any proposal to restructure the IAS scheme shall be subject to an appeals mechanism to ensure that-

(a) deferred members have not been disproportionately impacted in any restructuring arrangement, and

(b) such appeals mechanism shall be established by regulations that shall also outline the manner by which representatives of deferred members may be selected and recognised for the purpose of the appeal.”.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Clare Daly

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 31, to delete line 33.

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

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 17 is out of order.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 31, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“35.The Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998 is amended by inserting a new section 32A as follows:

“32A. (1) A healthy company or companies under section 32 shall not be allowed to close its pension scheme except where the scheme has reached a minimum 90 per cent funding standard.

(2) For the purposes of this section a healthy company means an employer that-

(a) has positive net revenues, or

(b) has a parent company with positive net revenues.”.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 19 to 23, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 39, to delete line 34 and substitute the following:

“(a) stop a person at the airport for the exercise of any of his or her powers under this section;”.

We have five amendments together here. They are generally aimed. We have been at pains to highlight several issues at Shannon in recent years and we have been rather disappointed at the Government's inaction despite the glaringly obvious when it comes to the Americans' use of Shannon for purposes that do not always meet international law obligations.

The Bill going through the House, soon to be passed, does not really address the problem of the US military use of Shannon. We are concerned that it is more designed to making it easier to curtail protests at the airport rather than ensure that the country fulfils its international obligations. These include the need to check the aeroplanes coming through Shannon because we are facilitating some very poor practice on behalf of the Americans. It has reached a stage where Shannon is practically an outpost for US military activity in the Middle East and beyond.

I will read an extract from a pamphlet by Shannonwatch produced by Mr. John Lannon. He addressed the issue of international and humanitarian law in respect of Shannon. He states:

The protection of civilians from the effects of armed conflict is a long-standing and important branch of international law, known as international humanitarian law (IHL). IHL is best known through the Geneva Conventions. These comprise four treaties and three additional protocols, and they set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. In addition, the Hague Convention (IV) 1907 represents commonly accepted rules of engagement that outline the means and methods of warfare. These conventions are binding on all states as international customary law. The 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention, plus certain provisions of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, spell out the duties of an occupying power. The Fourth Geneva Convention sets rules intended to protect civilians in times of war and to minimize the harm inflicted by armed conflict, including harm to internees and the population in occupied territories. According to many scholars, the Fourth Geneva Convention is considered to be international customary law, which all states should abide by regardless of their status as a State party to the convention. The killing and harming of innocent civilians by the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are in violation of the Fourth and Third Geneva Conventions. Furthermore Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits forcible transfer of protected civilians from occupied territory, and as a result extraordinary renditions from Afghanistan and Iraq are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Shannon Airport has played a part in these violations for many years. International humanitarian law also contains basic principles and rules governing the weapons used in war. It prohibits or restricts the employment of certain weapons, means and methods of warfare. Combatants are prohibited from using weapons that are inherently indiscriminate or are of a nature to inflict suffering greater than that required to take combatants “out of action”. The use of weapons that cause widespread, long term and severe damage to the natural environment is also prohibited.

Specific treaties prohibit or restrict the use of certain weapons. These include biological, chemical, blinding laser or incendiary weapons or bullets which explode or flatten easily in the human body. There are reasonable grounds for believing that some of these may pass through Shannon Airport.

The Minister probably does not need me to tell him that most of the people who have died in Iraq in the past 25 years did not die of bombs landing on their heads but of the after-effects of the bombing of their areas. More than 500,000 innocent people who played no act or part in any aggression towards America have died because of the types of weapon used by it in Iraq.

War crimes are serious violations by a country, its civilians or its military personnel of international humanitarian law. The idea is that an individual can be held responsible for the actions of a country or that nation's soldiers. War crimes are divided into two broad categories. First, crimes against peace, which include the planning, preparation and initiation of a war of aggression. Second, crimes against humanity are violations of the rules covering the means and manner by which war is to be conducted once begun and include the killing of civilians, indiscriminate bombing, the use of certain types of weapon, the killing of defenceless soldiers, ill treatment of prisoners of war and attacks on non-military targets.

Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, Ireland may investigate and prosecute foreign nationals when, for one reason or another, their countries of residence or origin will not, cannot or have not. As many of the people suspected of perpetrating war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and the occupied Palestinian territories use Shannon Airport, they could and should be arrested by the Irish authorities. Ireland has given the Americans carte blanche to use Shannon as they see fit. We do not seem to care about the end result or how many people, including civilians, die in the name of the American mission to bring democracy to the world, stability to the Middle East, or whatever they call it. All we know is that the effects have been detrimental to world peace. For a country like Ireland to take a position of neutrality would be a step towards that world peace.

This week, the living daylights have been bombed out of the Gaza Strip again, because Israel can do that. I beg to differ with anyone who believes that these actions are measured and fair. A spokesman for the Israeli authorities appeared on RTE's "Morning Ireland" today and told us that there was no blockade of Gaza. We all know there is.

What happens in the name of policing the world, which the US likes to do, is unfortunate. That we are complicit is also unfortunate. We are not innocent bystanders. We facilitate mass murder by the American war machine. The US does that for different reasons. Running for President of the US costs at least €1 billion. If most of that money comes from the arms and oil industries, one cannot possibly expect him or her to cut back on defence spending or adopt a serious approach to tackling international environmental problems. This is unfortunate.

We cannot control what America does, but we can speak out against it, call a spade a spade and address the fact that its behaviour is often disappointing. The favourite method under President Obama is the use of drones. Countless women and children have been killed by drones that are being used to take out someone in a village. The US seems to believe this is okay. The person being taken out does not even get the chance of a trial. Often, we do not even know what he or she is guilty of doing.

Given the Americans' financial power, their foreign direct investment in Ireland and their creation of jobs, we seem to believe that we cannot hold them to account for their military use of Shannon. That is not right. The companies investing in Ireland are making good money and we charge them very little tax for doing so. They would not up and leave if we started to take a responsible position on Shannon.

This morning, Margaretta D'Arcy returned to Limerick Prison in a Garda car. She will be there for two weeks because she had the courage to highlight how all is not well in how we behave in respect of Shannon. The judges at Nuremburg were direct and accurate when they stated: "Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." This is what Ms D'Arcy did. One might say that she is not allowed on the runway and should not be out there, but it is sad that it takes a 79 year old woman in poor health to draw attention to the fact that the Government does not take responsibility for Shannon. We are allowing the airport to be used by the US military for poor reasons.

For the life of me, I do not understand why any of our recent Governments, including the current one, did not have the courage to check the aeroplanes to verify they were in compliance with international law. We would not be shooting Americans or calling them liars. They might say we can take their word that there is no need to check the aeroplanes and that everything is grand, but we would not apply that rule to anyone else. If a garda at a checkpoint stops a car and suspects there may be drugs in the boot, he or she would not just accept the driver's word that there was nothing there and wave him or her on, but that is what we are doing at Shannon Airport.

It would improve Ireland's standing in international terms if we had the courage to say that from now on we will check the planes to make sure that everything is being done properly and that international law is being complied with. That is not such a bad thing to do. If the Americans say that everything is fine and that they are not breaking the law, that is fine too and they will not be guilty of anything if everything is grand. I do not know why the Americans would be worried about it. Why would we be worried about checking them?

WikiLeaks exposed the fact that a Fianna Fáil Government was complicit a number of years ago in this whole affair and it was pretty obvious that neither the Army nor the Garda was allowed to check the planes because they did not want to see what they might find. They were being informed that there was a very good chance that extraordinary renditions, which are illegal, were happening. They could have checked the planes to see if this was happening but, no, they did not want the answers. Since then, the Garda has always refused, despite the evidence at the time, to check the planes. It appears as if an instruction was given, even though it will not be confirmed. Despite asking the former Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on numerous occasions, was an instruction given at any stage to our police authorities not to inspect planes that land in Shannon that could be used for illegal US military purposes that contravened international law, we were never given an answer to that. It is very disappointing that no progress has been made on it. Different people in opposition, including the former Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, were very adamant that the planes should be checked and that this was not good enough, but when he went into power his view was that the Americans say that everything is grand so everything is grand. Everything was not grand when he was in opposition but it was grand when he was in power. That is one of the reason politicians in this country are lowest of the lowest in terms of public perception. We are probably lower than the failed builders and developers and that is saying something.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

That is a double whammy for the Deputy.

Deputy Mick Wallace

That is open to discussion, Timmy. I could argue that nothing ventured, nothing gained-----

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I would be with the Deputy on that.

Deputy Mick Wallace

-----but there would be no point in arguing that with you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should address his comments through the Chair.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I promise not to get personal.

Given that new arrangements are being made for Shannon Airport, it is a good time for us to take a good look at the use of Shannon and at ourselves in terms of the role we play in international politics and how we deal with international and humanitarian law. It is about time that we took responsibility for the land that we have. At present we are allowing Shannon to be used as a US satellite to carry out things that contravene international law.

I have read many of the statistics about Shannon and with regard to the amendments, I highlight again that we are conscious of the fact that some of the measures being introduced may make it a bit more difficult for peaceful protest and that they still do not address the possible illegal use of the airport. One would like to think that Shannon Airport would be a public space. I would also be a bit wary that some law, rules and regulations are being introduced which are a little different from what applies in other airports and I wonder is Shannon being treated as different and, if so, is it because of the US military use of same. I appeal to the Minister in that respect.

I did not hear it said but I heard that my good friend, Deputy Daly, passed on some compliments to the Minister on his role as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. Despite some differences I have had with him, especially his decision to use my former company's tax problems to defend the former Minister for Justice and Equality, I too would be an admirer of him. He is one of the more capable fellows on the Government side and if he ends up in the Department of Health or in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, I hope he will make a better fist of it than some of those who have been there before him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy. I call Deputy Daly.

Deputy Clare Daly

This is a hugely important aspect of the Bill. Like Deputy Wallace, I previously had the privilege of being a witness on behalf of Margaretta D'Arcy and Niall Farrell in their court cases when they were brought before the courts for allegedly interfering with the proper use of Shannon Airport. This goes to the heart of what we are discussing here. It would be completely wrong to ignore the giant elephant in the room, that is, the fact that Shannon Airport operates, in essence, as an ancillary or key part of the US war machine and without that business and that volume of traffic it would be a very different place. Are some of the measures being introduced in this part of the Bill being done to curtail the protesters who have inevitably gathered there as a result of it being an appendage of the US military and are we enshrining sufficiently the State's necessity to fulfil our international obligations under human rights law to protect our neutrality and ensure that we as a country are not engaged in activities which undermine citizens in other parts of the globe? That is the purpose of the amendments we have put forward.

Deputy Wallace has obviously forgotten that since the last occasion Margaretta D'Arcy has had a birthday and an 80 year old woman was transited to Limerick Prison earlier today for a two-week custodial sentence because she would not sign a bond and give an undertaking that she would not interfere or go on to the runway at Shannon Airport again and as a result of that she has begun today again serving a sentence in Limerick Prison. I salute her and stand in her shadow because she is absolutely magnificent.

About four weeks ago she and her colleagues in Shannonwatch gave a presentation to the petitions committee on how during the past decade and more they have consistently protested at that facility because of the ongoing use of Shannon to facilitate the US war machine. During that presentation, Margaretta D'Arcy highlighted the fact that the runway will be given over to allow a short sponsored run on it for a suicide charity and that she felt it was an appalling affront to the victims of suicide that the airport would be given over for such a measure when in the normal course of events the runway was being used to facilitate the slaughter of innocents. She said she would prefer to go on to that runway and blow herself up than be part of a state that would condone or turn a blind eye to our participation in what is going on.

It is in that same vein that we put forward these amendments because Shannon Airport is not a proper airport. I made the point on Second Stage that during the course of the trial of Margaretta D'Arcy and Niall Farrell two weeks ago Tom Clonan, the defence correspondent with The Irish Times, made the point that he had been engaged in discussions with the leadership of Hezbollah.

It pointed out that it was disappointed with the State for facilitating this not at Shannon Airport but at the airport in County Clare. The journalist made the point, probably not inaccurately, that many people in Ireland did not know that Shannon Airport was located in County Clare. Clearly, the leadership of Hezbollah knows exactly where it is located. It was disappointed that a neutral country would facilitate the American war machine in the manner in which Ireland was doing. What does this do? It exposes Irish peacekeeping troops in Syria and other areas of the Middle East to unwanted attention and Ireland as a potential target, of which people in Ireland do not take sufficient account. Also critical is the role we are playing in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. I put it to the Minister that, without access to Shannon Airport, much of this activity could not continue. We need to take another look at this issue. There is a precedent in this regard. For example, in Horgan v. An Taoiseach it was deemed that the use of Shannon Airport was in breach of Ireland's neutrality. However, the view of the Judiciary at the time was that while it was not permissible for Ireland to allow troops engaged in belligerent activity and so on to move across it, it was beyond its remit to make a point on this and, that it was, in fact, a matter for the Legislature.

At every turn, every relevant Minister from whom we have tried to get answers on this issue has failed to respond. As legislators, we have not been able to address this issue, which is hugely frustrating. Earlier this month I tabled a question about the countries of origin of the aircraft that landed at Shannon Airport. When I had tabled the same question previously to the Minister for Defence, his response was that he did not have the information and that I should seek it from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. When I did so, the reply included a list of 35 countries which had had aircraft land at Shannon Airport in the previous 12 months. It was a lengthy list and contained the names of countries of which I had never even heard. However, what was omitted was the number of occasions on which aircraft from each of these countries had landed at Shannon Airport. I tabled another question last week about the number of times aircraft from these countries had landed at the airport, the reply to which was a little peculiar in that the list supplied on the day, 8 July, contained 24 fewer countries than the list provided with the reply on 1 July. However, the information provided on the countries that had sought permission to land at Shannon Airport during the previous 12 months was illuminating. Eleven countries had sought permission to land as follows: Bahrain, one; Belgium, two; Canada, five; Croatia, three; Egypt four, which is a little worrying as I do not why Egyptian aircraft would have had to land four times at the airport. One wonders if it is a case of my friend's friend can land here and so on. The list continues as follows: France, seven; Germany, four; Italy, eight; Malaysia, one; Mexico, one; and the USA, 630.

In response to our consistent questions on why hugely expensive wide-bodied US aircraft carrying military personnel were toing and froing twice a day across our airspace and had landed here 630 times in the previous 12 months the Government's response was that they were not carrying arms or involved in any military activity.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Clare Daly

I am sorry, but is there a problem?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The Deputy will have another opportunity to contribute.

Deputy Clare Daly

No, I will not. I will have only two minutes for my second contribution.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

There is a time limit.

Deputy Clare Daly

This matter was clarified earlier. Four hours has been allowed for this debate.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The Deputy's time has expired. The Minister also has to reply and will have two opportunities to do so. Each speaker will have two opportunities to speak.

Deputy Clare Daly

We clarified this matter earlier. As I understand it, I have unlimited time for my first contribution and will have two minutes for my second. Four hours have been set aside for this debate. There is to be no use of the guillotine.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The Member who moves an amendment has an additional opportunity to speak.

Deputy Clare Daly

For two minutes.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Yes, for an additional two minutes. Each other speaker may contribute on two occasions.

Deputy Clare Daly

That is correct. I might avail of the opportunity to make a further contribution for two minutes, but for now I would like to continue my opening contribution.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The Deputy may continue, but these must be her concluding remarks.

Deputy Clare Daly

The point is we have not been able to obtain accurate information on this issue. That these hugely expensive aircraft that landed on our shores 630 times during the past 12 months were not engaged in military activity is, to be honest, laughable. The former Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Deputy Alan Shatter, challenged us to produce evidence that they were carrying arms. The onus is not on us to do so.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The Deputy's time has expired.

Deputy Clare Daly

No, it has not. There is no time limit. I have not yet even made my points on the amendments.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

All Members may speak twice.

Deputy Clare Daly

I am not being funny, but-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The second contribution shall not exceed two minutes. The Deputy has just made her first.

Deputy Clare Daly

Exactly, for which unlimited time is allowed. We sought clarification on this matter earlier.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

I am aware of that, but the Deputy cannot continue forever. Also she cannot make a Second Stage speech.

Deputy Clare Daly

I am aware of that. However, there is no time limit on my first contribution. I have no intention of speaking forever, although the Acting Chairman with his interruptions is ensuring that is more likely to happen than not. There are points I want to make and there is nothing in Standing Orders that prevents me from doing so. This matter has been clarified. How the debate would proceed was clarified. We were told we had as long as we liked to make our introductory remarks and would have two minutes for a second contribution.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Yes. The Deputy is speaking to an amendment.

Deputy Clare Daly

I am speaking to five amendments which are being discussed together.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Yes. In her contribution the Deputy must speak to the amendments, not make a Second Stage speech.

Deputy Clare Daly

I am focusing on the amendments which deal with the requirement to search aircraft. The section deals with the power of authorised officers at the airport. The amendments specifically seek to include in the section that authorised officers be required to conduct searches of such aircraft. I was trying to explain why this was necessary and detail all of the channels we had gone through to have the issue dealt with, only to be ignored at every turn; how protestors at Shannon Airport had done everything in their power to highlight the issue and how the Judiciary had responded by saying it was one for the Legislature. In addition, more than 100 requests to search aircraft have been lodged with An Garda Síochána, but this has not happened. The purpose of the key amendment is to require the authorised officer whose powers the Minister is changing to address the issue of the searching of aircraft. There are a couple of reasons it needs to be addressed on a legislative basis.

As the Minister will be aware, the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998 is the domestic legislation that gives effect to the Chicago Convention. The convention monitors how civil aircraft and so on are dealt with. It is deemed that every country has autonomy over its airspace and in this regard, can lay down its own rules. The Air Navigation Foreign Military Aircraft Order 1952 provides, "Every foreign military aircraft flying over or landing in the State on the express invitation or with the express permission of the Minister shall comply with such stipulations as the Minister may make in relation to such aircraft". When we previously raised this issue, we were given assurances that all 630 US aircraft that had landed during the previous 12 months at Shannon Airport had been carrying no arms, ammunition or explosives; that they were not engaging in intelligence gathering and were not part of military exercises or operations. However, the legislation does not stipulate this. Has this been decided in a subsequent ministerial order and, if so, when was it put in place?

I put it to the Minister that that criteria are not being adhered to in that no searches have been carried out by the Defence Forces, members of whom have been present for more than 300 landings during the past year, or An Garda Síochána. We know from Dr. Tom Clonan who has been on board some of the aircraft that weapons were being carried. We know from the error which occurred last year when weaponry was carried outside the aircraft that many do carry weapons. We know from US military policy that soldiers are not allowed to travel without their weapons which are not brought to them on a later Ryanair flight: they must carry their weapons with them. It will not be known if weapons are being carried until the aircraft are searched. I echo Deputy Mick Wallace's point that the onus is on us in this regard.

We would be doing a good thing and fulfilling our international obligations if we paid attention in that regard.

I wish to deal briefly with the amendments as they stand. The first-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

I believed that was what the Deputy was doing.

Deputy Clare Daly

Yes, I was, in a general sense.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

I remind the House again that the amendments under discussion are Nos. 19 to 23, inclusive, each of which has a specific text. The presumption is that the Deputy is speaking to those amendments individually and-----

Deputy Clare Daly

And collectively. I spoke to them collectively.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Collectively also. If the Deputy wishes to refer to the individual amendments-----

Deputy Clare Daly

That is what I am doing now.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

If she does not, contributions will degenerate into Second Stage speeches. This is not Second Stage. I am sorry, but those are the rules of the House.

Deputy Clare Daly

If the Ceann Comhairle had been present this morning-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

I am not the Ceann Comhairle.

Deputy Clare Daly

-----he would realise that we spoke to the group of amendments collectively initially in order to support our argument. We then dealt with each specifically in a brief way. The general points I have made apply to all of these amendments, but I am now about to deal with each specifically.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

I bow to the Deputy's superior knowledge of the rules of the House, but I must reiterate the rules of the House as they stand. I do not want to interrupt intermittently, but I must point out again that the procedure of the House is to address each amendment under discussion specifically and then to discuss them in general, if desired.

Deputy Clare Daly

If I got the order wrong-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Otherwise, I will have to do the same with the next speaker. I do not want to have to do that.

Deputy Clare Daly

That is fine. There are two proposers of each amendment. Deputy Wallace has spoken and I am speaking now. If I got the order the wrong way around, I am sorry. I do not have superior knowledge, but on two occasions this morning I sought clarification from the Ceann Comhairle on how this matter would be addressed and he was quite clear that we could make our mark for as long as we liked on having moved the amendments, and that we would have two minutes thereafter. If I made the general points first and am only now making the specific ones, I am sorry, but that is what I am doing.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The mover of the amendment has the right to reply.

Deputy Clare Daly

I know that, but the time to reply is only two minutes.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The mover of an amendment has three occasions on which to contribute to the debate.

Deputy Clare Daly

The first amendment in the group seeks to amend the Minister's proposal and substitute "stop a person at the airport for the exercise of any of his or her powers under this section". This amendment is based on certain fears I have. In the air traffic and navigation legislation, the wording is quite specific. People are concerned that stopping a person in this context gives one a total carte blanche to stop anybody anywhere for any reason whatsoever. Our amendment stipulates that a person can be stopped only for the exercise of powers under the relevant section. The Minister may feel that is implied in any case. Perhaps it is - I do not know - but the fact that we are specifying it is helpful.

The second amendment is to delete a section that refers specifically to the inclusion of part of the by-laws that are already in existence. One could say we know the by-law exists in any case, but my point concerns why a bit of it is being brought into the main body of the legislation. That has caused extreme concern. Is Shannon Airport to be singled out for special treatment? Is the measure being introduced to enhance the powers of the State or authorised officers, which this section deals with, in order to deal with the legitimate community protests in the area in question?

The next two amendments, Nos. 21 and 22, are linked and deal with "human trafficking, smuggling, kidnapping or other illegal transportation of persons". As Deputy Wallace mentioned, the amendments deal specifically with rendition and other unlawful activities which, it has been established without question or doubt, have been facilitated through allowing the use of Shannon Airport. To confirm this, we have only to read the editorial in The Irish Times from April of last year that deals with the research that was carried out on rendition flights from the United States. It made the point that much of the practice was facilitated by Ireland. Under human rights and civil legislation, we have a responsibility to incorporate what I propose in this body of legislation that is dealing with Shannon Airport. If we do not do so, it will be a little remiss of us.

The next amendment, No. 23, implies that if an authorised officer encounters any activity he believes to be facilitating human trafficking, rendition or another such activity, he has a responsibility to intervene immediately and seek assistance for those concerned.

The most important amendment in the group is to include in the legislation the power of an unauthorised officer to search. In the context of all the points I made and the fact that Irish people have spoken out time and again about their desire for Ireland to adhere to its policy of neutrality, there is an onus on us to carry out searches. There is no way the aircraft, which travel around the world, land in Ireland twice a day for nothing or that they are not carrying arms and are not involved in anything. Given the volume of traffic, one might believe those in the US military have a large number of holidays. Clearly, that is not the case. The dogs in the street know the military personnel are carrying weapons and that Irish neutrality is being breached. In much the same way as Deputy Dooley put it to the Minister, I put it to him, in the remaining hours of his brief, that we are not looking for anything extra. Under the Chicago Convention and the Air Navigation and Transport Act, we have the right to control our own airspace and establish our own conditions. We want the Minister to include the condition I propose, which is lawful in any case. He should do so in the body of the legislation on Shannon Airport, because one cannot talk about Shannon without talking about the US military.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

If the Minister changes post, I wish him well. Everyone else has wished him luck and I would not like to be the one left out. The Minister has always been very straight with me in answering questions.

In debates on this Bill, we have dealt with Shannon and pensions. However, there is an issue associated with Shannon Airport that most people find morally unacceptable, including me and my party. There are flights to Shannon that are not properly checked. People have actually been taken from their countries in other parts of the world and brought to certain locations via our airports. This is just unacceptable, and it is a breach of international law and our neutrality. No matter how one dresses it up, that is how it appears.

Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 would strengthen how Shannon Airport is monitored, how aeroplanes are examined and how people are authorised to do their work. It is very important that there be proper procedures for ensuring there is no human trafficking, smuggling, kidnapping or illegal transportation of people. The amendments provide supports for victims of breaches.

It is not appropriate that Shannon Airport receives revenue from allowing rendition flights. The Minister mentioned before that we honestly do not know what is on the aeroplanes. Obviously, members of the Garda and the airport police cannot gain access to the aeroplanes. We can only go by what people are telling us, which is that not only civilians are being transported but also weapons and troops. By any stretch of the imagination, one would be considered an ally of a country, be it at war or otherwise, if one were assisting it in this regard by allowing its personnel on one's soil to transport people from another state through one's airports. The Minister stated there are already checks and balances at Shannon Airport, but the only reason we do not check the flights is that the United States is an ally. That is not a sufficiently good reason for not checking the flights and adhering to proper international best practice. Whether the Minister likes it or not, the vast majority of people in Ireland have serious concerns and are pretty angry.

They might not be out on the streets or going to jail like the 80 year old woman, Margaretta D'Arcy, but I am convinced that the vast majority of people in this country are quite angry that we allow this to happen. Whatever arrangement or deal the Government has made, I do not believe it is acceptable and I do not believe Members accept it.

We have an opportunity in this Bill, through these amendments, to insert some extra rules and provide some type of regulation to deal with what and who is on these aeroplanes. Many of these people have been taken away from their families in other countries, moved from one country to another, landed on our soil and then taken to what are effectively internment camps. Whether they are guilty or not is not the issue. The issue is that we are accepting them on our soil, so therefore we are as guilty as those who are landing them on our soil. That is how I and many other people view it.

It is a breach of our neutrality and nobody can tell me otherwise. I cannot imagine anybody believing it is not a breach of our neutrality. We constantly say we are a neutral country, yet we allow this to happen. The amendments are quite reasonable and strengthen the system for how the Garda and the airport police deal with people in our airports. It is good that we should do that. It is time we revisited the issue of these rendition flights. It is no good telling me that there are fewer such flights. The reality is that if there is only one, it is a shame on us.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I will not accept these amendments, on the basis that there are already sufficient powers in existing legislation. While I appreciate the intent of the Deputies in wishing to restate the powers of authorised officers to search aircraft and conduct interviews, there has not been sufficient time to discuss them with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Justice and Equality and the Garda Síochána. Separately, I wish to point out that section 48 applies to all of the airports, not just Shannon Airports. This is not a special provision for Shannon Airport but is simply a restatement of existing law and it applies to all of the airports.

I am advised that An Garda Síochána has extensive powers of entry, search and seizure available to it as part of its duty to prevent and detect crime in order to protect the constitutional rights of individuals where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being committed. In addition to these powers, under section 18 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1988, as amended by the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998, to satisfy the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport that the necessary security and safety standards are being complied with, an authorised person or a member of an Garda Síochána has the power to first, enter any airport and inspect the airport and any apparatus, equipment or other thing therein; second, to enter any aircraft at any airport and inspect any apparatus, equipment or other thing therein or thereon; third, to require the operator of the airport or, as the case may be, of the aircraft concerned to furnish within such time as the authorised person may specify such information as he considers necessary for the purposes of the inspection referred to in paragraphs (i) and (ii); and, fourth, to restrict the operation of the airport or detain any aircraft during such time as is required for the exercise of his powers under the section.

It is reasonable to point out that sufficient powers already exist in law for the Garda or authorised persons to inspect aircraft, question people or inspect an airport. The point perhaps being made by Deputies is that while the law might be in place, it is not being enforced. I will return to that later.

There are also specific arrangements in place governing military aircraft and commercial aircraft carrying munitions of war. By law, foreign military aircraft may not overfly or land in the State without the express permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, as set out in the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952. As a matter of policy, Ireland does not allow foreign military aircraft overflying or landing in the State to be armed, to carry arms, munitions or explosives or to engage in intelligence gathering; nor may they engage in military exercises or operations. Requests for diplomatic clearance of overflights and landings of foreign military aircraft are sent from the embassy of the country concerned directly to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. After consulting with relevant stakeholders, the Department makes the final decision on whether to permit the overflight or landing. Diplomatic clearance is generally granted subject to assurances from the embassy that the conditions outlined are being met.

In accordance with international practice, foreign military aircraft passing through Ireland with the permission of the Government are not subject to routine searches or inspections. The principle of sovereign immunity applies automatically to foreign state or military aircraft, as it applies to Irish State or military aircraft abroad. The Government will continue to follow the practice of previous Governments whereby, in accordance with international practice, details to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade by diplomatic missions are accepted in good faith as being accurate. Based on this practice, information provided to other states by Irish diplomatic missions seeking diplomatic clearance for flights undertaken by the Irish Air Corps is similarly accepted by those countries to be accurate.

The carriage of weapons and munitions on commercial or civilian aircraft is prohibited under the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973, as amended, unless an exemption has been obtained from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. My Department operates a procedure under which airlines wishing to carry weapons or munitions through Irish airspace or airports apply on a standard form. My Department seeks the views of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with regard to foreign policy issues, the Department of Justice and Equality on security issues and the Irish Aviation Authority on aviation safety issues. A copy of the application is also sent to the Department of Defence. If any of these bodies objects, the Minister does not grant an exemption. On occasion, exemptions have not been granted.

The majority of exemptions granted relate to aircraft carrying military personnel accompanied by their personal weapons, but the exemptions issued under this legislation may also cover some flights carrying arms, ammunition and explosives. Munitions which are indiscriminate in nature are generally refused. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will object to an exemption being issued if there are foreign policy concerns about the type of cargo on board or the intended recipients.

Any person with credible information that Irish airports have been used for any alleged unlawful purpose, including human trafficking, smuggling, kidnapping or other illegal transportation of persons, should immediately report their concerns to An Garda Síochána, which has the responsibility for investigating such matters. On the basis of such reporting or any other information, where the Garda reasonably suspects that an offence is being committed, statutory powers of entry and arrest are available, as I have outlined. It is considered that all reasonable, appropriate and sufficient measures have been, and are being, taken to ensure that Irish airports are not being used for unlawful activity.

With regard to so-called extraordinary rendition, the Government has on several occasions made it clear to the US authorities that it would be illegal to transit prisoners for rendition purposes through Irish territory without the express permission of Irish authorities, acting in accordance with Irish and international law. The US authorities, for their part, have confirmed that they have not done so, and would not do so without seeking the permission of Irish authorities. The assurances Ireland has received in respect of such allegations are clear and categorical relating to the facts and circumstances within the full control of the US Government and were made at the highest level.

The Government will continue to follow the long-standing practice whereby assurances given to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in this area are accepted in good faith as being accurate. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has clearly stated that Ireland does not and will not permit the use of Irish airspace and Irish airports for flights associated with so-called extraordinary rendition, a practice to which the Government is firmly opposed. Certainly, I am not aware of any instruction given to the Garda not to search aeroplanes. Having been in office for just over three years, I am not aware of there being any unlawful rendition through Irish airports. I did ask. I have not adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to this. On taking office, I asked if there was anything I needed to know about Shannon and unlawful rendition and I was assured by my senior officials that there was not.

The number of military transits is falling. The number of troops going through the airport has been falling recent years. Most of the troops travelling through Shannon are travelling to and from bases in other European countries or in countries where the bases are in those countries at the request and invitation of the governments of those countries.

The vision for Shannon which is laid out in this Bill is not as a military airport. The vision for Shannon of the future is of a very busy civilian airport, transiting civilian passengers and cargo to and from Ireland and surrounded by an aviation industry hub.

That is very much the vision that is enshrined in this Bill for the future of Shannon. It is not designed to be an airport that is kept open as a result of military flights and the contents of the Bill demonstrate that.

Deputy Mick Wallace

The Minister began by saying there are sufficient rules and regulations in place. Nonetheless, there is no oversight or scrutiny and no independent assessment. It reminds me of the situation with Priory Hall. People were hopping up and down, giving out that the building regulations are terrible in Ireland. The building regulations are not terrible in Ireland; they are powerful. The problem was we were not implementing them because there were no independent inspections and rogue builders could build badly and get away with it.

It is all very well to say sufficient rules and regulations are in place in Shannon and that we have nothing about which to worry. Unless there are inspections, however, we do not know the truth. While the Minister says it is not his area of responsibility, I would say we should make the inspections obligatory and there would then be no grey area. The Minister said the airport is not being used for the transportation of arms or for military exercises in any form. Again, unless we have obligatory inspections, we will not know whether that is true. The Minister said we take their word in good faith. I am sure Angela Merkel feels a little different about that now she has found out the NSA was bugging her telephone, even though she thought they were on her side. These are people who I do not believe have proved worthy of their word and I do not think their word is worth tuppence.

The Minister said the rules are geared towards developing the airport as a civilian airport. I certainly hope Shannon grows as a civilian airport. It would be great if it were to develop in a serious way and became an even more powerful civilian facility than it is at the moment. However, that does not change the fact we should not turn a blind eye to any power, the US or otherwise, breaking international humanitarian law when using our airspace. The only way we can address that issue is through obligatory scrutiny and independent assessment.

Deputy Clare Daly

The Minister made the point that there are already sufficient powers on the Statute Book to deal with these issues. However, I put it to him that this point applies to all of the component parts of the amendment that he put forward on Committee Stage in that all of those powers were also there sporadically, dished out around the place, but the Minister chose to bring them into this Bill. To do that without bringing in the other powers, which he acknowledges are there in terms of the State having the ability to search, is a serious mistake.

It is like the former Minister for Justice and Equality asking the Garda Commissioner, "Any problems with the operation of the guards?", and being told, "No, there aren't, Alan. Move along", and then saying that everything was fine. We all know where that ended up. This is very similar. An Garda Síochána does have powers but it does not exercise them, and there has to be a reason for that.

There is a double standard at play here. The Minister is probably aware the US authorities chose to search the Irish Government jet on a trip Bertie Ahern took a number of years ago. There was no Third World War and the Irish State did not go crying, roaring and screaming. It accepted it, sucked it up, the aeroplane was searched and that was that - move on. It is not a big deal. It is normal international protocol for an independent state that has control and sovereignty over its airspace, and there is nothing unreasonable about that.

Deputy Wallace is correct that we cannot trust a single word coming from the American authorities. I am not saying that flippantly. We know it because of the practices that have taken place, which are beyond dispute. The United Nations and others have spoken about the use of rendition, including the use of rendition through Shannon. It is widely speculated that Chelsea Manning was trafficked back through Shannon and there is evidence that the Gulfstream jet which is often in Shannon and which was sent to pick up Edward Snowden, although they did not get him, had landed in Shannon that night also.

I want to echo the points made. We are complicit in torture and murder unless we exercise our neutrality, our sovereignty and the powers that exist at the moment. Assurances are not nearly good enough. It is in the interests of all citizens that these amendments are accepted in order to enhance the powers that are already there. Maybe, for once, we might carry them out and get the information I am under no illusion does exist.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I find it difficult to understand when the Minister says he accepts the word of the American officials or the Embassy when representations are made in regard to different flights. It has been proven time and again that they have been economical with the truth. What is wrong with having the flights searched? What is wrong with having a situation where gardaí or the airport police would have the opportunity to examine any aeroplane at random, if they so choose? I do not see anything wrong with that.

I have had the experience of talking with people from Arab countries. They view us as not being neutral. They view us as part of the problem because they see themselves as under siege from America, Israel and so on. They view it differently, whether we like it or not. Therefore, we are putting our people at risk at Shannon Airport - that is the reality. There is a risk to people at Shannon because we do this, whether we like it or not.

I do not understand this. I experienced being extradited to England by aeroplane so I know the way the system works as I have seen it first-hand. I can tell the Minister it is far worse and far different to the image that is portrayed. The same thing happens in America, where I met Palestinians who ended up in jail there. I heard of the way they were treated and the way they were brought on aeroplanes from other countries to America. That is the reality. I do not see any reason that we should not have a situation where we can inspect these aeroplanes and not be confined to taking the word of a Government, an Ambassador or otherwise. I believe it is wrong.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I do not have much to add. I reiterate that this section applies to all of the airports, not just to Shannon. What we are doing here is updating and restating the existing powers of authorised officers at the airports. The powers of officers are set out in several different Acts dating from 1973 to 2004. Some of the language used in those earlier Acts does not reflect modern usage and needs to be updated, but no additional powers are being provided here for authorised personnel.

In the short time that was available, it was not possible to ascertain the validity or otherwise of including the Deputies' amendments in a Shannon Bill as such amendments would have required consideration and proper engagement with the Department of Justice and Equality, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Garda Síochána.

I should also point out that the amendments as proposed do not provide for obligatory inspections or even random inspections and that we continue to accept diplomatic assurances from the United States in regard to military and Government aircraft as it and other countries accept ours. As an aside, I was not aware the US had searched the Government jet during the then Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern's period in office. I was interested to hear that. I am not sure whether they were acting on a complaint or evidence, or whether it was a random search.

Deputy Mick Wallace

Maybe he was smuggling. To sum up, we have made our points and the Minister has made his. I would encourage him to encourage gardaí at Shannon to carry out their duties of care, duties of crime prevention and duty to comply with Irish and international law and conventions. They can do that only by checking the aeroplanes but it seems the Minister is not prepared to make that obligatory.

We have heard that gardaí are not allowed to check. It would be great if someone in the Government recommended that they do check, even if it is only sporadic. Mr. Colm O'Gorman of Amnesty International which, God knows, is not a radical organisation asked:

How we can speak out about human rights if we do not apply them ourselves? Ireland is not an innocent bystander. We have been complicit in kidnapping and torture by allowing Shannon Airport to be used as a stopover for rendition flights.

In a Red C poll last year 78% of the people of Ireland said they would be in favour of the State taking a position of neutrality and enshrining it in the Constitution. This is something the Government should consider. Taking a position of neutrality is about promoting peace in the world and it would be brilliant if we were to take a strong stand on the issue.

We know that Mr. Julian Assange has been in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for almost two years. Despite the fact that he was granted asylum by Ecuador, he is not allowed to travel there. The United Kingdom is in breach of international law and has breached the rules on asylum, which is very disappointing. I would like the Government to express its concern that international law is being breached in not allowing Mr. Assange the asylum he was granted by Ecuador. He is in the Ecuadorian embassy and has not been out in the fresh air for over two years. This is a guy who exposed a lot of wrongdoing around the world and is paying the price for it. It would be great if Ireland was to take a neutral stand and highlight the unfairness of his plight and treatment.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 108; Níl, 26.

Tá

• Bannon, James.
• Barry, Tom.
• Breen, Pat.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burton, Joan.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Collins, Áine.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Connaughton, Paul J.
• Conway, Ciara.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coveney, Simon.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Donnelly, Stephen S.
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Ferris, Anne.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Terence.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harrington, Noel.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Healy-Rae, Michael.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Hogan, Phil.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Keating, Derek.
• Keaveney, Colm.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kelly, Alan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lawlor, Anthony.
• Lowry, Michael.
• Lyons, John.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McEntee, Helen.
• McFadden, Gabrielle.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• Martin, Micheál.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Murphy, Eoghan.
• Nash, Gerald.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reilly, James.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Stanton, David.
• Troy, Robert.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Varadkar, Leo.
• Wall, Jack.
• Walsh, Brian.

Níl

• Adams, Gerry.
• Collins, Joan.
• Colreavy, Michael.
• Coppinger, Ruth.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Daly, Clare.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Fleming, Tom.
• Halligan, John.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McLellan, Sandra.
• Mathews, Peter.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• O'Sullivan, Maureen.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Ross, Shane.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 40, to delete lines 32 to 36.

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

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 40, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

"(v) whom he or she knows to be involved in, or reasonably suspects of being involved in human trafficking, smuggling, kidnapping or other illegal transportation of persons.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 41, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

"(d) make appropriate arrangements for the provision of assistance and support to victims of human trafficking, smuggling, kidnapping or other illegal transportation found in the course of a search under this subsection.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 41, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

"(9) Where an authorised officer has reasonable grounds for believing that an aircraft at the airport, or its crew or passengers, are engaged in activities, or transporting materials or individuals, that may be in contravention of national and international legal commitments and obligations, or carrying dangerous material or unauthorised weapons, may, without a warrant—

(a) carry out a search of the aircraft to ensure that it is fully in compliance with national and international legal commitments and obligations, and/or

(b) make appropriate enquiries from the crew and/or passengers of the aircraft,

and/or

(c) instruct the person in charge of the aircraft to keep the aircraft at the airport pending further investigation by the Garda Síochána.".

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 106.

Tá

• Adams, Gerry.
• Collins, Joan.
• Colreavy, Michael.
• Coppinger, Ruth.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Daly, Clare.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donnelly, Stephen S.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Fleming, Tom.
• Halligan, John.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McLellan, Sandra.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• O'Sullivan, Maureen.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Ross, Shane.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Wallace, Mick.

Níl

• Bannon, James.
• Barry, Tom.
• Breen, Pat.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burton, Joan.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Collins, Áine.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Connaughton, Paul J.
• Conway, Ciara.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coveney, Simon.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Ferris, Anne.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Terence.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harrington, Noel.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Healy-Rae, Michael.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Hogan, Phil.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Keating, Derek.
• Keaveney, Colm.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kelly, Alan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lawlor, Anthony.
• Lowry, Michael.
• Lyons, John.
• Martin, Micheál.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McEntee, Helen.
• McFadden, Gabrielle.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Murphy, Eoghan.
• Nash, Gerald.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reilly, James.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Stanton, David.
• Troy, Robert.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Varadkar, Leo.
• Wall, Jack.
• Walsh, Brian.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 42, line 16, to delete “An” and substitute “the”.

This is a technical amendment replacing "An Garda Síochána" with "the Garda Síochána".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 47, line 6, to delete “to insert” and substitute “by inserting”.

This is a minor technical amendment substituting the words "to insert" with "by inserting".

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 form a composite proposal and will be discussed together.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 50, to delete line 1.

These are both technical amendments and are related. The word "and", which links paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 55, is in the wrong place and should be between paragraphs (c) and (d). The two amendments delete the word "and" after paragraph (b) and insert it in its correct position after paragraph (c). Amendment No. 26 deletes the word "and" between paragraphs (b) and (c) and amendment No. 27 inserts the word "and" between paragraphs (c) and (d).

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 50, between lines 13 and 14 to insert “and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.