Air Navigation and Transport (Preinspection Bill, 1986: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Communications (Mr. Nealon)

The purpose of the Bill is to provide a legislative framework for the setting up of a US immigration and public health preinspection facility at Shannon Airport. That facility is to be set up in accordance with an agreement proposed to be made between the Irish and US Governments. The terms of the proposed agreement, which is scheduled to the Bill, have been approved by the Dáil. The agreement will be completed on behalf of the two Governments when the legislation is enacted. The preinspection facility is due to start, on a trial basis, with effect from 1 July, hence the urgency attaching to passage of the legislation.

Arising from an Aer Rianta initiative aimed at increasing traffic through Shannon Airport, the question of establishing US customs, immigration, and public health preclearance at Shannon has been discussed with the US authorities on various occasions since the 1970s onwards. The US already have such arrangements with Canada, the Bahamas and Bermuda. In the early stages of the discussions, a full preclearance arrangement was considered, but it was not proceeded with because

(a) Aer Lingus were concerned about the delays which would arise for the Company's services to the US due to the necessity to off-load baggage at Shannon in order to process it through customs and

(b) the US customs authorities seemed to be less than enthusiastic about the proposal.

Interest in customs preclearance at Shannon tended therefore to recede somewhat. Last year, however, the Minister decided to pursue the matter further with the US authorities and, at a meeting in Washington in October, with Mrs. Elizabeth Dole, the US Secretary for Transportation, raised the question again. The meeting was well worth while and, following discussions between officials of our two administrations, the text of a draft agreement on a more limited preinspection arrangement was finalised. Under the proposed agreement, officers of the United States Immigration and Naturalisation Service would conduct at Shannon Airport inspection of passengers and aircraft crew required by United States immigration and public health laws and regulations for entry into the United States. Customs clearance would be carried out in the normal way on arrival in the United States. The draft agreement allows for extension of preinspection to other airports if considered desirable at a later stage.

As Senators are no doubt aware, airlines operating long-distance routes between parts of the US and Europe may, for a variety of aeronautical reasons, have to make a technical stop for refuelling purposes at an intermediate airport and, over the years, Aer Rianta have marketed Shannon as a suitable transit stop. The principal benefit to Ireland of preinspection is that Aer Rianta will be able to market it as another reason why airlines should operate through Shannon, thus generating additional traffic movements at the airport.

With the prospect of avoiding what are often lengthy delays at immigration on arrival in the US, preinspection at Shannon would mostly benefit business people and passengers holding other than US passports. Aer Rianta believe that preinspection should be of particular interest to airlines operating between Europe and the US with significant numbers of non-US citizens on board. Indeed, I see no reason why it should not also be of interest to airlines operating scheduled services between the US and Ireland, particularly those which turn around at Shannon.

To test the value of preinspection to Shannon Airport, agreement has been reached on an initial trial period of four months, commencing 1 July, after which the results of the trial will be evaluated by both countries and a decision taken as to whether preinspection should be established on a permanent basis. The trial period covers the peak period at Shannon Airport and, in the view of both the Irish and US authorities, will be sufficient to determine whether or not the experiment is a success.

Initial estimates were that preinspection could result in 100 extra landings at Shannon during the four-month trial period, generating significant net additional revenue for Aer Rianta from aircraft landing fees, inflight catering, sales of fuel and sales in the duty-free-shop. Aer Rianta estimated that the additional revenue generated would more than compensate for the "once-off" cost to the company of providing the physical facilities required at Shannon for preinspection.

Recent developments with regard to international terrorism have affected somewhat the Aer Rianta projections, as it is now generally accepted that fewer US visitors will come to Europe this summer. However, this new situation makes it all the more necessary for us to take all possible measures to maximise the attraction of this country and its airport facilities to airlines flying between the US and Europe. The Government have decided, therefore, to press ahead with the proposals for preinspection at Shannon. I have been assured by Aer Rianta that, on the basis of commitments already received from a number of airlines, the preinspection scheme will still be well worth while.

Under a permanent arrangement, the additional costs to the US Government of providing preinspection at Shannon compared with the cost of inspection on arrival in the US would fall on Aer Rianta. However, in accordance with the terms of the proposed agreement and normal practice in the US preclearance arrangements with other countries, these costs could be recouped by Aer Rianta from the participating airlines. In the course of the negotiations, the US side agreed that the United States Immigration and Naturalisation Service should bear the costs of posting INS officers at Shannon during the trial period and that the cost of the required physical facilities at Shannon would be borne by Aer Rianta. This should make participation in the trial period more attractive to airlines.

I should mention that Aer Lingus, who have expressed concern lest preinspection might cause delays at Shannon to their services to the US, nevertheless propose to avail of the trial period to put some of their flights through preinspection. I was glad to hear of this because my Department have been assured both by Aer Rianta and the US authorities that sufficient resources will be made available to ensure that delays will not occur.

The Bill before the House is intended to give legal effect to the terms of the proposed agreement with the US. There are two aspects of the Bill and the draft agreement to which I think I should draw particular attention. They relate to the questions of national sovereignty and law enforcement.

The presence of officials from a foreign Government at Shannon has given rise to some fears in regard to sovereignty. I would like to set the record straight. The INS officials at Shannon will be acting within the powers granted to them under the Bill which is before the House and proper and effective safeguards have been built into the Bill and also into the draft Agreement which is scheduled to the Bill.

The provisions of the draft agreement which could be held to touch on Ireland's sovereignty, for example, Article IX which deals, inter alia, with the question of immunity for US citizens assigned to INS duties in Ireland; Article V which deals with the powers of INS officers, and Article VI, paragraph (4), which deals with law enforcement, have been drafted as restrictively and tightly as possible.

Section 5 of the Bill specifies the preinspection duties which INS officials will be authorised to carry out in the State, while section 6 provides for immunity from civil and criminal prosecution for such officials while carrying out those duties. Senators should note, therefore, that the immunity enjoyed by the INS officers will be strictly limited to acts performed in the course of their duties at the preinspection facility. It should also be noted that provision is made in section 6 (3) of the Bill, as in the draft agreement, whereby the immunities granted may be waived by the US Government. This is normal procedure under the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Counsular Relations.

The House will see, therefore that, in so far as Irish law is concerned, the INS officials are, in effect, designated persons under section 5 of the Bill carrying out specified functions and subject to Irish law in every way like other residents except for the immunities under section 6.

Section 6 (4) provides for protection of the facilities used by the INS officials, while the provision in section 6 (5) of the Bill reflects the undertaking contained in Article IX (4) of the draft agreement regarding privileges to be accorded in the future to the relevant US officials. The House will note that the question of the privileges to be enjoyed by the US officials concerned will have to be the subject of further consultations and agreement between the two Governments. It is envisaged that these privileges will relate principally to the areas of income tax and customs examination on transfer of residence.

I would also point out that the text of the draft agreement, by imposing obligations on the US authorities to consult with and/or to seek the agreement of the Irish authorities in relation to a number of significant operational aspects of preinspection, provides an important element of control by the Irish authorities. For example, Article VI (2) provides that the preinspection facilities to be provided must be the subject of agreement between the competent authorities of both countries; Article VI (3) requires the agreement of the competent Irish authority to any communications and inspection aids and equipment required by the INS for preinspection purposes and Article VII (1) provides for Irish control over the number of INS officials to be assigned to preinspection duties; Article VII (3) imposes an obligation on the US authorities to consult with the competent Irish authority on matters relating to the implementation of the agreement; while Article VII (5) provides that the INS shall immediately inform the Irish Immigration Service of any refusal of passage onwards to the US and supply the latter with all data relevant to that decision.

Moreover, the US authorities have accepted, and it is written into the draft agreement and into section 5 of the Bill, that any search of passengers by INS officials would have to be on a voluntary basis. We regarded this as a very important point of principle.

Section 7 of the Bill is concerned with aliens control. At present, for the purposes of aliens control, persons who are in transit at Shannon Airport are not regarded as having arrived in the State. This principle is reflected in section 7, which provides that persons flying into Shannon, who are cleared for passage onwards to the US by the INS and who then continue their journey to the US will not be regarded as having arrived in the State. Where, however, a person is refused passage onwards by the INS, it is necessary that that person should be deemed to have arrived in the State and be required to present himself or herself to an Irish immigration officer for permission to land. This will be necessary because there may not be an early return flight to the person's point of embarkation or place of origin. Persons refused passage onwards will be given or refused permission to land in the State having regard to their individual cases and to the Aliens Act and orders made under that Act.

In the case of persons refused permission to land in the State, it may be necessary in some cases to keep them in detention pending suitable flights out of the State. It is not expected that the number of people refused passage onwards will be large or that their numbers should pose any problems for our immigration officers. Accordingly, no extra staff will be needed to deal with this category of person. As I have indicated already, the INS will be required to provide information to our immigration officers about persons refused passage onwards. Such information would be of use to our immigration officers in the event of such persons seeking permission to land in Ireland. This arrangement will not result in any expense to the Irish taxpayer as the draft agreement provides that the air carrier will be responsible for all expenses and arrangements in connection with return to the point of embarkation or country of origin of persons refused passage onwards by the INS.

I think it is important also that I should draw to the attention of Senators the fact that, under the terms of the draft agreement, law enforcement at the proposed preinspection facility will remain in Irish hands. Under Article VI (4) of the draft agreement, the Irish Government undertake to provide appropriate law enforcement assistance to prevent persons refused passage onwards from boarding a preinspected flight. Such assistance would be confined to cases where there was a threat of a breach of the peace or, for instance, where there was a threat of an assault or where an actual assault had taken place. That type of situation can arise at present at any of our airports.

Therefore, what is envisaged in the draft agreement in relation to law enforcement is not new. Indeed, boarding or attempting to board an aircraft by an unauthorised person is already a prohibited act under Article 4 of the Airport By-Laws 1978.

Section 8 of the Bill provides for increased penalties for offences such as obstructing, impeding or assaulting authorised officers or for refusing or failing to leave a State airport when required to do so by an authorised officer. The existing penalties were laid down by the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1950 and are very much out of date.

As with the immigration service, it is not envisaged that the extra work on law enforcement will necessitate any extra staff to deal with matters arising from the preinspection operation at Shannon. Incidents requiring law enforcement assistance, which are expected to be few in number, will be dealt with as part of the normal workload of the law enforcement officers concerned.

In view of certain comments made recently outside Leinster House, I should like to make one point absolutely clear. INS officers assigned to Shannon Airport will not be armed, nor was it ever intended that they should be.

Over the years, Shannon has had its peaks and troughs. The introduction of jet aircraft on trans-Atlantic routes in the late fifties obviating the need for refuelling stops, threatened the viability of the airport. This was the stimulus for the establishment of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, which was given responsibility for developing traffic through the airport and for encouraging industrial development in the immediate vicinity of the airport. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the significant contribution made over the years by the development company in attracting terminal traffic to Shannon Airport. The results are highly visible and of high profile on the ground for anyone even with a casual visit to the area at present.

The efforts of SFADCo were built on by Aer Rianta from 1969 onwards, when they took over the management of the airport and, later on, the catering and duty free shops. The marketing of Shannon as a technical stopping point, the expansion of mail order and duty free sales and the success of the Aeroflot refuelling facility have all made substantial contributions to the wellbeing of the airport. The turnaround in the financial performance at Shannon in recent years has been largely due to the efforts of the board, management and staff of Aer Rianta. They deserve high praise. Following a series of losses in the years 1979-82, which reached a peak of £1.6 million in 1980, results at Shannon in recent years have been much improved, with surpluses of £3.3 million and £3.6 million respectively in 1984 and 1985. In view of the expected downturn in the number of US visitors to Europe this summer, it would be too optimistic to expect the results at Shannon this year to match those of recent years. Nevertheless, the proposed new preinspection facility should provide some measure of compensation by attracting new traffic to the airport.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Lanigan

In giving this Bill a welcome and recognising that it can be very useful, we nevertheless must admit that it is less than was sought by Aer Rianta in the beginning. It is unfortunate that customs clearance facilities will not be available as well as the immigration and health inspection facilities which will become available. It is unfortunate also, after so much work has been put into the setting up of this major facility of Shannon Airport, that it would seem as if the trial period of four months is too short a period in which to evaluate the value of this facility.

There are, as the Minister said, in terms of the operation of Shannon Airport peaks and troughs. It may be that the four month period from July 1 onwards might be a trough period, even though in terms of normal traffic through the airport it should be a peak traffic period. The facility is one which is very welcome. It should create the opportunity for about 100 extra flights into Shannon during the four month period. He is worried that we may not reach the 100 extra flights because of the lessening of passenger traffic into Europe from the United States. Obviously, if there is a lessening of traffic into Europe from the United States there will be a lessening of the number of people who will be travelling back to the United States, unless there is a build up of traffic from Europe by Europeans to the United States to compensate for the fewer Americans who will be travelling to Europe this year.

The Minister highlights the fact that international terrorism has caused a large drop in the numbers of people coming from America to Europe this year. Unfortunately, in the past number of months too many people have been concentrating on terrorism as being the main cause of this downturn in visitors from the United States to Europe. If the Americans were being honest and a proper evaluation was being made of the causes, the primary cause would be shown to be the change in the value of the dollar. The fact that the dollar has increased in value in the past months means that people coming from the States are not getting what they would consider to be as good value as they had been getting in the past number of years. It has to be said that the reason that Americans were coming in increasing numbers was because European currencies against the dollar were very good value for Americans. People could fly into Ireland, Great Britain and into continental Europe and in a normal week's purchases of reasonably priced luxury goods save the fare from America. There is better value for Americans at present in staying in America for their holidays. There is better value to be obtained in America in terms of the cost of oil products. Therefore, the big push in America is to see America first. The visits to Europe have been cut down. The value of the dollar is the main cause for Americans not travelling and not the threatened international terrorism. Unfortunately, this message does not seem to have got through.

There are a number of reasons for welcoming the preinspection at Shannon of emigrants to the United States. This gives a speedier preinspection for people who are emigrating or who have to go through the emigration process. The delays at the major airports in America are enormous and can create problems.

For certain people who may be trying to get into the United States illegally or with emigration visas which are not proper there is a certain saving for airlines of European origin, in that these people will not be flown over the Atlantic and then have to be sent back at great cost to the airlines involved.

There are a number of questions that have to be asked regarding the setting up of the facility at Shannon. It is suggested by the Minister that the airlines can be charged in order to recoup this cost. Can the Minister give us any indication as to the cost of providing this facility? There has to be a major capital cost in terms of equipment and buildings. I do not think that there is sufficient space at Shannon which could be used by the immigration services to do the job which is supposed to be done under the aegis of this Bill. I would like to ask the Minister how much it is going to cost the Irish Government to set up this facility.

The Minister mentioned that the cost would be recouped from airlines. May I ask the Minister if airlines feel that landing in Ireland is a costly process? The cost per tonne of landing in Ireland is quite high. How much will be added to this cost for the provision of facilities for preinspection?

I am disappointed to see that Aer Lingus have agreed to have only some of their flights preinspected. I cannot see why they do not go along with the great efforts that are being made by Aer Rianta and by the Government now, in following up Aer Rianta's great work and initiative in producing this Bill, and allow all their aircraft which are heading for the States to be preinspected at Shannon. It is expected that at least four other airlines will use the preinspection facility. I am very disappointed that Aer Lingus are not availing of this facility to the fullest extent. If we are trying to sell this as a bonus for Shannon Airport, for Ireland and as a bonus for travellers, Aer Lingus should have gone along with the purposes for which this Bill is before us today.

A number of points have been raised in relation to what the Minister has said. A few of them will be of concern to people who feel that our sovereignty could be at risk because of the fact that we would have United States immigration officials working on Irish soil. It will be the first time I think that facilities like this will be provided in Europe. It appears that the personnel of this facility will have the same status as embassy staff who, while within the embassy doing their job, have political diplomatic immunity. It would appear now that we are going to have a secondary area of diplomatic immunity in Shannon Airport.

There is a definite worry that we could have in Shannon a situation where highhanded INS officials could create problems for people travelling to the United States. It has been mentioned that this type of operation has been working in Canada for a number of years. I would sincerely hope that the personnel who would be stationed by the United States Immigration Department at Shannon would be a little more human in their attitude towards young people who are going to the States than is the case in the current situation in Canada. Numerous stories come back from Canada of people travelling from Shannon by Air Canada and passing into the United States. They are being treated like dirt by various immigration officials in Canada. There have been incidences of strip searching. The situation here does not seem to be any different in the sense that the person who wants to go through the immigration officials can object to being searched or need not answer any questions. Of course if they do not answer questions or if they object to a search obviously they are not going to get through the facility.

I am suggesting that the Minister must ensure that young people who are travelling to America will be treated, whether they are on student visas which will allow them to stay there for 12 months or whether they have holiday visas for three months, as human beings and not treated as people who are trying to buck the system.

What I have said in regard to some of the United States immigration officials based in Canada is not true in all cases but it does happen on occasions. We do not want a parallel here in Ireland. I ask the Minister to ensure that the immigration officials who do come over here are people who do their job as a European would do, as a gentleman or as a lady would do it. They must realise that everybody who is going into the United States and who is under 25 is not going out to work illegally: they are not all wetbacks. A number of them are going out for legitimate purposes whether it be for holidays or for summer work. On the visas granted by the Embassy here in Dublin 99.9 per cent of the people concerned are going out in a legitimate manner.

Mention was made in the Minister's speech of immunities granted which may be waived by the United States Government. I would like to have some clarification on this. Diplomatic immunity is granted in certain circumstances but the Minister is suggesting that the United States Government may waive these immunities. If immunities are to be waived why is it not the Irish Government who would waive or have the power to waive immunities? As these people are operating in our State, I cannot see why it is the United States Government who would waive immunities.

In relation to the facility at Shannon I would like to ask the question: will it be totally staffed by United States personnel or will there be any Irish presence there? What privileges will the immigration staff be afforded? In terms of the worries of Aer Lingus I would like to know what delays might arise at Shannon as a result of these preinspections? To take a typical flight from Dublin landing at Shannon, what extra time is it envisaged might be taken up by going through the immigration preinspection and health inspection? What is the situation where you might have people who are not Irish citizens travelling on an Aer Lingus plane and it might seem to the immigration officials that these people would have to be questioned for a longer period than an ordinary applicant for immigration purposes would have to go through. Will these people be taken off the planes? Will they be held over for the next plane or what is the situation that will apply there?

It would appear that if this proposal works — and I sincerely hope it does — that there will be a continuance of the facility at Shannon. As I have said, I think that four months is too short a period to evaluate any major scheme of this nature. The workers in Shannon and indeed the workers in factories who have facilities in the duty-free shops in Shannon must welcome any enlargement of the numbers of flights that will stop at Shannon. I am sure that Aer Rianta if they had a guarantee of a longer period than four months to market this facility could do a fantastic job in selling the idea of stopping at Shannon and having the immigration and preinspection facilities afforded to people travelling onwards to the United States. I do not think they can do this in four months: I hope I am wrong.

Obviously, workers are going to benefit if the number of flights increase, not alone in Shannon but in the duty-free shops and the workers in the factories supplying the duty-free shops will benefit. On the question of security in this area I would like to have the Minister enlarge on what he has said. He did say that no United States armed personnel will be allowed in this facility. I would like to know what sort of security will be provided by the Irish Government in this facility or surrounding this facility. How does the Minister foresee security problems which might arise in the facility being dealt with since apparently there will be no Irish presence there and the people inside will not be allowed to carry arms?

For the sake of Shannon and the whole Shannon area I am delighted to see that there has been a turnaround in the trading figures of the airport and that for two consecutive years there has been an increase in profitability. I have no doubt in my mind that this is due to the fantastic work that has been done by Aer Rianta and by SFADCo in the region. I sincerely hope that Aer Lingus, as our national airline will pay more attention to Shannon and indeed pay more attention to getting people in and out of Ireland at a reasonable cost. If Aer Lingus became more cost conscious, as they are being forced to do at present because of increased competition, we would have a lot more tourists, business people and traffic going through Shannon Airport.

In section 7 of the Bill which concerns alien control, it is suggested that there will be no cost to the State; if persons are not allowed to go to America, the costs of holding them or of sending them back to the country of origin will be borne by the airline carrier concerned. Do these costs include the cost of keeping a person in Ireland while awaiting transportation back to where they embarked on the plane and what facilities will be provided in these instances? Will these people be held in custody in a facility in the Shannon Airport area, as happens in Canada where people are held in jail custody and have to wear jail uniforms before they are sent back to where they came from? Can the Minister tell us exactly what facilities will be made available for people who are not allowed to travel onwards after being questioned by the immigration people at Shannon? If the airlines carry the cost of repatriating these people, equally they should bear the cost of keeping them in a reasonable facility other than incarcerating them in jailhouses or garda barracks.

I welcome the Bill and hope that the facilities will not finish at the end of the four month period but that they will be continued. Hopefully, in the future there will be a full customs clearance facilitity provided in conjunction with the immigration preinspection and health inspection. This Bill should increase the revenue to Shannon Airport and in doing so also increase the value of Shannon to the entire country.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

I welcome the Bill. In doing so I wish to pay a particular tribute to the Minister for Communications who took the initiative last October of having the preinspection project at Shannon advanced to the point where we are now enacting legislation to deal with the facility being provided at Shannon Airport. This is a very fortunate development because the effects of international terrorism and the great pressure that tourism is under because of these events over the last number of months could not have been predicted last October.

We are all well aware of the recent visit of the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism to the United States and the televised pronouncements of the British Prime Minister relating to the concern felt in Britain also about these terrorist attacks. Of course we have even closer associations with North America. The widespread feeling that exists in Europe generally on the downturn in American tourism required some kind of a fillip and new initiatives that would produce a throughput at Shannon. This development is coming not just at the right time but it could not have come at a better time from the point of view of Shannon. It was interesting to hear the in the Minister's speech the historic role that Shannon has played as a major centre, and about its being the most important international airport in the country.

With the arrival of jet aircraft in the fifties we saw a change in the need for Shannon in that aircraft did not need to refuel. In the period after that, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company put Shannon on the map as an area which did not just provide an international airport but provided a very strong industrial base. We have now got the development of something even more significant on an international level, the development of a European gateway to America which surely Shannon must become in the foreseeable future with the emergence of a full customs clearance role for the Airport in due course — although I realise that is not the intention of the Bill as of now. The introduction of immigration and public health preinspection at Shannon clearly indicates a new and important development for the airport. I am satisfied that the four months trial period, which was a concern of Senator Lanigan, will be long enough to prove whether the facility will be as valuable as indicated in the Minister's speech. This period will start, fortunately, in the busiest season of the year and I am quite certain that the ingenuity of the US and Irish authorities will be utilised—I would expect all of it from Aer Rianta — to let it be known to international carriers that this facility is available to avoid the great problems that exist in such airports as Kennedy in New York. It should speed up transit to America and avoid the difficulties that passengers can encounter going in and out of that airport. This period is long enough; frequently the impact of Governments or Oppositions is judged on a shorter period than four months. We can expect in a four-month period — particularly because of the timing of this period — to get a really sound indication of how useful this form of preinspection will be in the long term.

I share Senator Lanigan's concern about how ready Shannon Airport is for this development. I wish it every good luck and hope that Aer Rianta will be able to respond with facilities at the airport which will be able to cater for the 100 extra landings that are expected at Shannon during the four-month period. It is indicated in the Minister's speech that we are talking here of in-flight catering sales of fuel and sales in the duty-free shop. Could the Minister tell us what kind of separation this preinspection facility will have at Shannon? Will it be a part of the airport or set aside from the normal role that Shannon Airport plays as the principal international airport of this country? Will flights coming in for preinspection be directed to one particular set of buildings or will they use the facilities that are there already and thus ensure that there is little or no need for Aer Rianta to compensate otherwise for the provision of the new facilities at the airport? I would be interested to know in a little more detail what evaluation has been made of the requirements for preinspection at Shannon when the period of temporary preinspection has been concluded successfully — as we all hope it will be. We hope it will lead to a full preinspection facility and perhaps customs clearance in the future.

This Bill carries with it the promise of great development for Shannon. This facility can be a showpiece for Shannon. People who pass through Shannon on preinspection flights will be attracted to come back and visit Ireland another time. Presumably, these will be people who perhaps have never visited Ireland and we may be able to make a good impression on them.

Senator Lanigan spoke of the difficulty experienced by some young people at airports in Canada where this preinspeciton facility exists. I share his concern in this regard. He went on to express his concern about what might happen at Shannon in the future when he spoke of incarceration of young people on their way through the airport. I hope this will be in no way typical of the type of incarceration that is associated more with conditions in the Maze or other such places of detention. I hope we will be operating a new level of facility at Shannon which will be seen as a showpiece for the country. I would like to know what kind of development will be necessary beyond the four-month trial period and whether it will be a facility which will be separate from the airport itself and the normal international role it plays.

Mr. Conway

I also welcome the Bill as a great step forward. This facility was available to this country in 1981 or 1982 but was not accepted because Aer Lingus had some idea that it would not work because of passenger facilities. This was sad because we would not be talking today about the ordinary facility but about a much greater facility with full customs clearance which Senator Lanigan spoke of. Those problems would be resolved now and Aer Lingus would not be in a position to block anything and would first accept this facility without any pre-conditions and if there were problems with Aer Lingus they should be directed to use the facility completely. If other airlines wish to use this facility but the national airline do not, it blurs the situation for us. Every obstacle should be removed and Aer Lingus should be forced to use the facility completely.

I should like to comment on the proposal that preinspection may be conducted at additional locations in Ireland by agreement expressed in writing between both Governments. This seems to indicate that there are other areas where the Government would wish to carry out these preinspections. I am referring to Dublin Airport. We would be afraid that when the runway which is to cost in the region of £30 million is completed the Government would intend to move the preinspection facility from Shannon to Dublin. I would like the Minister to acknowledge that this will not happen and that the facility will be given exclusively to Shannon as is stated in the agreement. It is important that Shannon retains this facility and that employment in this area would be completely protected.

Tribute should be paid to the Minister for entering into this agreement and also to Aer Rianta who in the past three or four years especially have been aggressive in their marketing operation. It is wonderful to see this happening in a semi-State body and I would ask other semi-State bodies to be as aggressive in the marketplace. I would like to pay tribute to Aer Rianta for bringing this facility here. As Senator FitzGerald said it is an historic role for Shannon Airport and, indeed, it is of historic significance that both Ireland and the USA have entered into this agreement.

I would like to know what the present position is and future position will be with regard to people seeking refuge in this country or looking for political asylum. Commercially it is probably the wrong thing to say but we have seen many disturbing incidents with regard to people who, for reasons of their own, have asked that they be granted political asylum in this country. This has happened in transit between Cuba on one end and Moscow on the other. It is sad that few of the people who have asked for political asylum have been granted it. One would have to ask what happens to those people once they are left on that plane after they have asked the Irish authorities to give them political asylum.

The Red Cross in Ireland are deeply concerned about this situation and the Government's approach to it. Are the commercial implications for this country the over-riding factor? As far as I understand it, many people have been flown out of here on Aeroflot. What happens to them and to their families after they arrive in Russia should be investigated as a matter of urgency. As I understand it, the people who are conducting this are young and have a certain rule book. I should like to know when the rules were written and who wrote them, how up to date they are, and whether they should be amended because of the situation now.

Are we happy that we, a free country, are giving the facility to people who, because of their own situation, have approached this country looking for political asylum? Anybody who is courageous enough to seek political asylum should be given the full courtesy of this country. It ought to concern us, as a nation, as to what happens to people once they leave this country, having sought political asylum here but being refused.

The other area I should like to comment on is that of the American tourists. The Minister referred to the company making a profit in the year 1984-85 but said that is not likely to be the case this year because of the fall in American tourist traffic. As we have relationships now with our counterparts in the USA, we should impress on them that this is a peaceful country and one which they should be sending their tourists to. There is also the situation where nearly 2.1 million American tourists have been going to England while only 350,000 have been coming here. This is an area we should explore with the American officials to see if more American tourists might come here. Naturally, they would be welcomed by the Irish people and by Shannon.

The first reservation I would have is in relation to Aer Lingus. I would hope that they would enter into this without any reservations and be fully prepared to cooperate and use the facility. Second, regarding Aer Rianta, they have been very aggressive in the market place and have done an enormous amount of good to promote Shannon. Third, the Minister should examine carefully the matter of political asylum to see if the commercial factor is the over-riding factor in this whole matter. We should ensure that people who apply for political asylum get a fair deal from us.

We should welcome the American tourists in every way possible and allay any fears they might have in regard to their safety so far as this country is concerned.

I welcome this Bill. It is a great improvement and it provides a great facility for Shannon, a facility which will continue to grow. I agree with the Minister when he says that he has to get it through the Seanad fast as it has to be in operation from 1 July. I do not think this House will hold it up. It will be very interesting to see what happens during the trial period. I have no doubt but that the trial period will be the basis on which this agreement between the two countries will operate for the betterment of Shannon and for the betterment of this country as a whole.

Mr. Howard

I want to make a short contribution to the discussion on the Second Stage of this Bill this evening. Coming, like you, a Chathaoirligh, from the mid-west, I would like to congratulate the Minister in bringing this measure before the House. I say this because of the benefits and the advantages I can see coming to the Shannon region as a result of the operation of preinspection at Shannon.

Many people will not be aware of the fact that it is now almost 16 years since the idea of preclearance at Shannon in respect of passengers to the USA was mooted. It was the brainchild of both SFADCo and Aer Rianta. I am satisfied that it would have reached fruition much earlier were it not for opposition it encountered from agencies and from people within the State. It is regrettable that almost 16 years had to pass before a measure, which would be of obvious benefit and which had all the indications of being a successful operation would be introduced. That delay has been due to the refusal of certain agencies and certain people within the State to accept the value of the proposal.

Initially, the idea was for customs, immigration and public health preclearance at Shannon. The proposal, because of the opposition to it, receded on many occasions and was resurrected from time to time. I want to express a special word of congratulation to the Minister for having successfully raised this issue again last year with the American Secretary of Transportation and for having succeeded in getting two thirds of the package that was planned originally. The original package included customs pre-clearance as well. Customs preclearance is not included in the present proposal. It is simply immigration and public health pre-clearance. These will be a reality on 1 July next and I am satisfied that the four months trial period which the Minister has proposed to test the value of the operation will be sufficient to indicate that it can succeed, that it will be successful and that operational difficulties should be at a minimum.

The proposal represents a further element in the development of Shannon Airport. There are spin-off benefits which will very clearly emerge from it. First, there are the landing fees from the additional aircraft at Shannon. Then there are the additional jobs in the catering services there, in fuelling and in the duty-free shops. I am satisfied that the quality of the management at Shannon Airport and the quality of the work force there will ensure the success of this proposal.

There is another element of the deal for which I feel the Minister deserves special praise. He has succeeded in sharing the costs of getting the operation off the ground, sharing the cost of what has to be done physically at the airport to enable the operation to take off.

The Minister dealt at length with the question of national sovereignty and law enforcement. I have no doubt that he felt obliged to do that for the purpose of ensuring, as it is his duty, that there would not be an infringement of national sovereignty and to clarify the true situation which will prevail in relation to law enforcement. Perhaps to some degree — it was very much a secondary degree — I am sure he was inspired to do that as a result of several red herrings that have been introduced in relation to this aspect of the project in recent weeks. I never cease to be amazed at the lengths people can go to to find an excuse to knock a good idea. There is this amazing capacity in so many of our people to search and to seek for the negative angle in any worthwhile project or proposal. Where that negative angle cannot be located, the capacity to construct an artificial one is always there. In relation to this matter we have seen that happening. To some extent these negative aspects of the scheme may have been promoted by an element of jealousy that this project is now to become a reality at Shannon. The Minister has adequately dealt with any justifiable fears raised in relation to that particular aspect of it. He has told the House that the provisions of the Bill and of the draft agreement which will be scheduled to it contain sufficient safety conditions and that these conditions and the draft agreement and, indeed, the provisions in the Bill, have been drafted as restrictively and as tightly as possible.

I welcome the pre-inspection and the fact that this facility, after long years of effort, will now be available at Shannon. I am satisfied that the project will be a success there and I look forward to its being a permanent arrangement, including customs clearance as well.

Mrs. Honan

I warmly welcome the legislation. My views on Shannon and on any new project are well known. I should like to put on record my thanks and indeed, the thanks of many other people for the great imagination and sound judgment of men like Liam Skelly and Michael Guerin. I mention just those two people of a big team, as Senator Howard knows well. We could do with more people like Liam Skelly and Michael Guerin in the nation today to get other projects off the ground such as this one. The reason I mentioned those two people out of the full team is that somebody made reference earlier as to whether Shannon was ready. Shannon was always ready for any challenge over the many years, including not alone senior management but right down to the lowest paid, shortest hours workers. They have an extraordinary commitment in Shannon which has proved itself well.

Senator FitzGerald made reference to Shannon being the gateway in future to all places. I would say that Shannon is the gateway to all places, for Senator FitzGerald's information. Any legislation that gives 100 extra landings at Shannon, I welcome. There may be questions asked as to whether Shannon is prepared for 100 extra landings. I would say yes, it is ready.

Aer Rianta will maintain and have maintained Shannon Airport; it has met all the challenges that have been handed down to it. The personnel of Aer Rianta have maintained a very high standard and have given the highest service at all times. Extra traffic through Shannon will not be any bother for Aer Rianta.

When this project was initiated it was rejected. It has taken 15, 16 or 17 years to come about. Anything that comes even after 16 years is to be welcomed. The Minister dealt with the four-month trial period, commencing on 1 July. When the Minister is replying to the debate, he might make it clear as to who will decide that the four-month trial period has been an absolute success? It might suit some people to knock it and not allow it to continue. I do not know and I should like to know this evening.

I understand from what the Minister said that there will not be extra jobs created. Again, I should like to ask the Minister if he is totally happy that it will be all personnel outside his jurisdiction or that of an Irish Government that will be dealing with this.

Senator Lanigan made references to diplomatic immunity being granted to the INS officials at Shannon. This is an area where I would hope there would be an input from a Government Department on the Irish side. In any new project or scheme, there could be a snag that would cause upheaval of the whole thing. Just as there would be supervision from the INS, there should be supervision from the Irish side also. We are talking about a very important airport and apart from it being in County Clare, it has been involved in a debate on our neutrality. I should like the Government to have an input in the supervision of the INS personnel. This is because of my concern arising from discussions in other places touching on our neutrality.

On the question of delay at the airport, I understand that Aer Lingus stated that they could not have delays. With due respect to Aer Lingus, let them leave Dublin earlier. Shannon is a pleasant place to be in and a half an hour or an hour more there will not do any of the Aer Lingus boys with the gold braid on their cuffs any harm, if that would be their only problem.

Senator Howard made reference to knockers of some description. I do not know to whom he was referring to. The Senator is like myself about Shannon. Ever since the Airport was put there there have been knockers. We have had a repetition of that elsewhere in recent weeks. Knocking an airport does not upset or bother me at all.

The Minister stated that the INS officers assigned to Shannon Airport will not be armed. I am concerned about this matter and at the same time I do not want to take it out of context of the Minister's speech. He says that the INS officers assigned to Shannon Airport will not be armed. Will the Minister tell me how will he or his Department know that some of these persons may not, at some time in the future, be armed? This is a sticky problem. It is not something to throw across the bow because I warmly welcome the legislation. Anything that helps Shannon helps the nation. Who will have the authority to find out whether officers, are armed or not at any time, even if it is only one individual? We can search our own, but can we search the INS officers?

Will there be extra gardaí, because at no place in this legislation has extra staff been mentioned for this legislation. I do appreciate that the spin off will give extra jobs. I am big enough to admit that it will give extra jobs. Will there be a need for extra Garda personnel at Shannon? I would say that the Garda personnel at Shannon are fully stretched with what they have to do. If there is extra supervision of any part of this, I would see then that there would have to be extra gardaí in the Shannon area.

I warmly welcome the Bill. I hope that the Minister will keep a close eye to it, and that in four months from July 1 nobody will allow him to change or to remove something that he intends to implement. I have already placed on the record of the House my confidence in Aer Rianta at Shannon. They are a credit to the nation. I say that I do not know what way any of them vote. I see it at first hand. We could do with more persons like them. I totally support the Bill and I should like the Minister to deal with the few reservations I have mentioned; it is only for future security and our neutrality that I make those references.

Mr. O'Leary

I support very strongly anything that has a beneficial effect on Shannon Airport. A country the size of ours can only really have one international airport. The balance of advantage lies in maintaining Shannon as the international airport for the country. Too many of our facilities are concentrated in the Dublin area. I will not pass any comment about other grandiose schemes that people might have to transfer the facilities in a more northerly direction, a north westerly direction to be more precise. That is bordering on the ridiculous.

Having said that, I suppose the introduction of a Bill like this cannot fail to send a little shiver down our spine. It is telegraphed by the Minister in his introductory speech and by most of the other contributors in that there is something a little bit subservient or threatening to one's national independence, the very concept of inspecting people going from this country to the United States of America. It may well be that temporarily there are quite a number of people going for temporary periods of time from this country to the United States of America. But I believe the time has long passed when on a permanent basis it is either good or healthy to send our most educated and adventurous people abroad. We should welcome United States industry into this country and look for the development of those industries within here rather than export our brains in order to bolster the economic strength of that fine democratic republic.

It is a bit threatening. For that reason the Minister has placed the agreement between ourselves and the United States of America in its proper context. He has confronted the problem of sovereignty which was mentioned by most people as being something which would need careful examination in relation to the implementation of this agreement.

I am confident that the Minister has, indeed, confronted that problem properly. While instinctively I would oppose the measure because the granting to a foreign Government of some kind of additional or extra facilities which seem to place us in a subservient position would be naturally distasteful to me. However, I am confident the Minister has taken into account the views of people like myself. The agreement which has been negotiated between the Government of this country and the Government of the United States reflects properly the balance which should exist between sovereign Governments.

There are two areas in which I consider that to be very well catered for. One is in the text of the agreement itself and the other is in the assurance which the Minister has given us. I would consider it quite unacceptable for the employees of another country to be armed in Ireland. If anything for me spoilt the very pleasant and welcome visit of the President of the United States of America, it was the obvious facilities for armed employees which were made available to him on that occasion.

Mrs. Honan

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Leary

It gave rise to some difficulty, not only in this country but also in the United Kingdom. It did not exactly sit easily with us in this country that such a thing should be necessary. I do not want that to take from the very wonderful visit it was and how welcome President Reagan was to this country. In giving the House the guarantee that the employees of the United States assigned from time to time to carry out duties in this country will not be armed, the Minister has taken a load off my mind. For that I congratulate him.

The second point which I would like to refer to is the question of the limited immunity which it is proposed to grant to the employees of the United States under section 6 of this Bill. It is a very limited kind of immunity. I wish sometimes that Senator Lanigan would carefully read the legislation before talking in terms of diplomatic immunity. To call this diplomatic immunity and to equate it with an immunity which you would give to a diplomat is quite daft, to say the least of it. It is an immunity only in respect of acts performed in the exercise of their duties under the agreement. That is a very limited form of immunity. In fact, the actual duties are listed. There is no immunity for anything that does not fall within that. This person will be susceptible to the Irish driving, drink, parking and fire-arms laws. All these people will be liable to all these statutes. That is only right and proper. That gives me considerable confidence that the Minister has maintained a proper balance in negotiating this agreement. To suggest, as Senator Lanigan did, that that amounted to diplomatic immunity is stretching the definition of diplomatic immunity very far indeed.

We examined this concept of immunity previously in this House in the Euro Control Act, where certain people under that Act were given immunity in respect of acts which they carried out and other people were given a greater degree of immunity. The level of immunity proposed in section 6 is sensible. That is the second reason why the Minister continues to have my confidence in this delicate area.

The Minister might indicate who he considers to be the competent authority, who he proposes to appoint as the competent authority. I presume he proposes Aer Rianta as the competent authority. The competent authority is rather ponderously defined as "the Minister or any person appointed by him by order under section 2." Does the Minister intend to appoint Aer Rianta or does he intend to appoint anybody else? Does "person" mean a human being or an organisation? The Minister might like to indicate whether it will be open to him under that definition — it may well be open to him as a result of the Interpretation Act to appoint a company or an organisation as the competent authority rather than a living person? Any person appointed by him shall be the competent authority. If it is an organisation, does he intend appointing Aer Rianta? If he does not intend appointing an organisation or if it is not possible to do so who is the competent authority he proposes to appoint? That competent authority is given the power under section 3 to enter into agreements with air carriers who wish to avail of preinspection.

There is another point I would like the Minister's response to and I would like to make some contribution in regard to it on Committee Stage. An initial response might facilitate the debate on Committee Stage. Section 6 (5) proposes that a citizen of the United States shall enjoy, in addition to the immunities, such privileges as may be agreed between the Government and the Government of the United States by an exchange of notes. The Minister said that he envisages income tax concessions and customs examination on transfer of residence. Is it open to the Minister to make an exemption in respect of income tax? Under the authority does he propose to so do? Can he say that Mr. Jones, who is coming over here, will pay income tax as if he was still resident in the United States? I have no objection to that. It is quite reasonable that that should be done. Has the Minister authority to do so is the point I am making and, if not, should he take that authority?

I do not understand the need for exemption of customs examination on transfer of residence. I would have thought that customs examination would be an automatic matter on the transfer of a person's residence or the transfer of a person from one country to another. If, for example, the agreement included a customs clearance area I could understand the inclusion of this second customs examination exemption facility. In the present context I find it difficult to understand.

The words used in the agreement and the Bill are riot exactly the same. I understand why that is the case. The agreement is an agreement within two countries and, therefore, has to be expressed in one type of language. The Bill is, of course, internal to our country and should be expressed in a different way. Is the Minister happy that they are compatible? I would like his assurance on that. Subject to that, and to the other points I have raised, I welcome the proposal and wish the facility every success during the initial period and subsequently in its permanent implementation.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications (Mr. Nealon)

Senator Lanigan questioned whether the period of four months for an experiment of this new idea of pre-examination would be sufficient. I must say, as a lay person without expertise in this area, that I have somewhat the same view myself. Both sides, I am assured, agree that this period is long enough to decide if the experiment will be a success. As I explained earlier, it us unlikely that the 100 extra flights which were envisaged when discussions were going on will now materialise at Shannon. Nevertheless, Aer Rianta say that the experiments unquestionably will be very well worthwhile, will give the necessary information that they seek and of course, with the fall off in the number of people using it against the forecasts, every effort should be made to introduce the extra facilities which in fact might still improve the throughput through Shannon on this occasion.

Senator Lanigan also dealt with the question of fees and the cost to airlines. Under a permanent scheme of preinspection, that is, if the experimental period turns out to be successful and it is put on the ground on a permanent basis, the participating airlines will have to bear the cost of the stationing of US officials at Shannon over and above the cost which would be incurred if the same inspection were carried out on arrival in the United States.

The cost will be allocated amongst the participating airlines on a per passenger basis, each airline being charged a fixed amount in respect of each of their passengers and crew members subjected to preinspection. The cost per passenger cannot be calculated accurately at this stage as negotiations concerning the number of flights and passengers from each participating airline which will be preinspected have not yet been concluded. Obviously, the more passengers that go through who are preinspected then the more cost effective the operation would be and the lower the cost per head.

We can at least refer to what is happening in other countries. On the basis of the cost of existing pre-clearance operations in Canada, the Bahamas and Bermuda it is considered that the cost to the airlines participating in a permanent preinspection arrrangement would be in the range of 50p to £1 per passenger. The cost, of course, will not arise at all during the trial period when the only charge on the airlines in regard to preinspection will be the charge for overtime and Sunday working by US officials which the airlines would be obliged to pay, in any event, for inspections conducted in the United States on Sundays or outside official hours.

Senator FitzGerald and Senator Lanigan also mentioned the question of the permanent facilities that will be required at Shannon and the facilities required for the temporary inspection for the trial period. A separate new building will not be required at present. The facilities to be provided in the trial period will consist of an inspection area equipped with an appropriate number of inspection booths for the INS officers, two associated interview rooms for secondary inspection purposes with appropriate office furniture, a sterile holding lounge of appropriate dimensions with seating and other passenger facilities including toilets of a style to be agreed between the INS and the airport authorities and adequate office space and associated facilities for supervisory and general INS staff usage. These offices and facilities will be in accordance with the standards and practices normally applicable to office accommodation provided by the airport authority for other agencies at Shannon Airport.

Aer Rianta will be in a position to move very quickly to provide the necessary facilities as soon as the Bill is passed and an agreement is signed. Additional facilities will have to be provided next year when we move into the permanent situation. It is not possible with accuracy to give the actual cost for the facilities, that is there for the physical structures that I have outlined. On this occasion it will not be very substantial in overall terms. I should think that, if the permanent preinspection facilities are set up there, the cost will still work out at less than £250,000.

Senator Lanigan questioned the quality of the INS officals and the necessity that good manners should be shown at all times to passengers passing through. The INS are naturally anxious that the experiments be a success and the INS officials who will be carrying out preinspection will be very carefully selected. I am sure that the Senator's fears in this respect, although very correctly expressed, will turn out to be groundless. Naturally this is something that on an ongoing basis we hope will work out very well but, despite the reservation expressed by the Senator, overall the experience with INS operatives is pretty good. I hope that the good nature and charm of the area in which they will be living will in due couse rub off on them, and they will go to work in good humour every day and that this will be reflected in the manner in which they will handle their passengers going through.

Senator Honan, Senator Lanigan and others asked whether it would be entirely United States citizens who would be employees. A condition of employment of the INS immigration inspectors is that they must be citizens of the United States. That is a condition, wherever they are operating, at home and in the other areas in which they are operating as well. Therefore, while there are no jobs available in that area as far as Irish citizens are concerned, there is no question of any Irish citizen being deprived of employment opportunities because they are coming here. There is, as mentioned by Senator Howard and several other Senators, the obvious spin-off that will take place with the increased throughput of passengers and the flights that we hope this will bring to the Shannon area and the spin-off that will come in the duty-free zone and in all of the other areas.

Senator Lanigan made a passing reference to the extra landing costs. There will be no extra landing costs for the planes as such. The carriers can either use this facility or not use it. If they use it there will be a cost on a per passenger basis in the permanent scheme. It does not make it any more expensive for people to use Shannon who are not availing of this facility. In other words, it does not impinge on their costs there.

As regard the question of security, all I can really do here is to assure Senator Lanigan, Senator Honan and the other Senators who mentioned this that the security matter will be very fully and thoroughly looked after. I am afraid that I have to ask the House to take my word on this because it is not customary, and certainly would be inappropriate now or at any time, to give details of the existing security at Shannon or indeed of any planned future measures that might take place. All I can do then is ask the House to accept my word on this, that naturally all of these things are investigated on an ongoing basis and any implications that this might have for security matters will also be considered.

Senator Lanigan spoke about the detention facilities for persons who might be refused permission by the INS officers to travel onwards to the United States. When this happens, such persons are of course required to present themselves to Irish immigration authorities to be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the aliens legislation. Under the draft agreement air carriers participating in preinspection will be obliged to refuse carriage onwards to the United States to any person found ineligible by the INS to travel on a preinspected flight.

They will also be responsible for returning any such person to his or her point of origin or country of nationality. In the event of such person being refused permission to land here under the Aliens (Amendment) Order of 1975 they might have to be held in an authorised place of detention should a suitable flight out of Ireland not be available immediately or quickly — this is the point that was mentioned by a number of Senators. Whether such a person would be so detained or would be temporarily released would be a matter for decision by the Irish immigration authorities, and detention would be in an authorised place of detention such as a Garda station.

Senator Conway dealt with the matter of applications for refugee status. The situation under the Bill is no different from the position that exists on the ground at present. There is a very well tried and very detailed system of operation when this happens. When people seek asylum there is a procedure of consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative at London before the Minister for Justice makes a decision in such a case. The introduction of this Bill makes no difference as far as our general approach to people seeking refugee status is concerned. There is a very clear set of rules for treatment of such applications and these are followed and will continue to be followed.

Senator Conway mentioned the question of additional locations. Article 4 which deals with this is an enabling provision which could enable preinspection to be conducted at additional locations in Ireland on the agreement of both sides. There are, however, no proposals at present to conduct preinspection except at Shannon and, given that it is a longstanding Government policy that all trans-Atlantic scheduled services must stop at Shannon in both directions, then Shannon is the logical location for the preinspection. It was, however, felt that it would be desirable to provide in the agreement for the possibility that preinspection might be conducted at some airport other than Shannon not least to avoid the charge that preinspection was being granted to Shannon as an exclusive right to the detriment of other airports in the State. It is an enabling provision. There are no proposals at present to conduct preinspection except at Shannon and, of course, we have the longstanding Government policy that transatlantic scheduled flights must stop at Shannon in both directions, so it is a logic allocation. The possibility is there however, and in dealing with legislation which will be on the Statute Book and perhaps may not come again before either House of the Oireachtas for ten or 20 years this is the proper approach in this particular case.

Senator Conway said that Aer Lingus should be forced to use preinspection. Senator Howard and a number of other Senators drew attention to the fact that Aer Lingus did not appear to be overenthusiastic about this new introduction. It cannot be denied that Aer Lingus have reservations. They will be sending some of their flights through inspection and they will be monitoring the position closely. The Minister's general policy in this respect — I believe it is the right one — is not to give directions on such matters to the various State bodies. The bodies must have freedom to act commercially as they judge fit.

Why have Aer Lingus got reservations? The principal concern seems to be the possibility that preinspection will cause delay to flights with the resultant disruption of their schedules and as they operate with only three aircraft, as distinct from some of the other airlines, it could be difficult to put these right quickly. For this reason they have indicated that they do not intend to participate fully in the experimental period of preinspection. As I have said, they will be putting a number of flights through and they have also indicated that they will monitor developments very carefully during the trial period and will review their position afterwards.

I am confident when Aer Lingus see this in operation they will have a change of mind about it and realise that the competitive thing to do at the end of the trial period will be to go through preinspection. A number of people mentioned the fact that this was not the full canvas of the preinspection and that we do not have customs here. It is a known fact also that the longest delay is caused by immigration officials rather than by customs, so that what we are giving here, even though it does not include customs in the particular agreement, is a very valuable amenity for travellers and carriers going to the United States.

Senator Honan asked who will decide on whether the experiment has or has not been a success and whether it will continue. This is covered in Article 12 of the draft agreement. Both Governments must agree that the experiment has been a success and should continue. It is a question of the consent of both Governments that it has been a success and should continue.

As regards the question of immunity from prosecution, as Senator O'Leary explained, this is a very limited form of immunity dealing only with immunity while the INS staff are about their actual work. As far as the immunity from civil and criminal prosecutions is concerned it only covers acts exclusively in the exercise of their duties as set out in the agreement and the Bill. In all other respects as regards waiving immunity this would be subject to the law of the land. It is possible also that the United States Government could, in the same manner as is possible in diplomatic immunity, to waive immunity, also to do so in this particular case.

The duties of the INS officers do not involve carrying arms. We have an assurance that they will not be armed. If an INS official was suspected of carrying a firearm he would be subject to the relevant Irish firearms legislation like anyone else and he could be prosecuted. Assurances have been given by the INS that they do not intend that their officers should bear arms at Shannon. They are not doing so under the agreements they have worked out as far as Canada, the Bahamas and Bermuda are concerned. It has been asked, who could carry out an inspection on the inspectors to see if they are armed? The fact remains that in the ordinary course of events they would be subject to our legislation just the same as anyone else might be and they would be subject to the firearms regulations and legislation.

Mrs. Honan

The reason I asked that question was that there was an officer in Canada who was armed. I simply ask if there is any protection for us as legislators.

Mr. Nealon

I am sure that if there was an officer carrying a firearm in Canada then obviously it was not in accordance with the agreement worked out between the United States and Canada. I have specific information here that the situation is that weapons are not carried by the officials in Canada, the Bahamas or Bermuda where agreements for preinspection have been worked out.

Senator Honan asked if more gardaí would be needed. It is not envisaged that the extra work of law enforcement will necessitate any extra staff to deal with matters arising from the preinspection operation at Shannon. Incidents requiring law enforcement assistance are expected to be very few in number and they will be dealt with as part of the normal workload of the law enforcement officers concerned. However, if such turned out to be necessary, naturally we would have to take cognisance of the fact and provide the necessary personnel.

Senator O'Leary dealt with section 2 which provides that the Minister shall be the competent authority in Ireland for the purposes of the agreement and that he may by order appoint an appropriate person or body — it could be a corporate body, it could be an individual — to carry out certain specified functions of the competent authority. It is proposed to delegate to Aer Rianta certain functions dealing with air carriers wishing to avail of the preinspection.

Senator O'Leary asked what privileges will be granted under section 6 (5) of the Bill. It is understood that the privileges which the US authorities are anxious to secure relate to taxation of INS salaries and to customs charges on household and personnel effects on transfer of residence. The privileges will be a matter for agreement by the two authorities. As regards the legislation under which it would be possible to give an income tax free situation as far as an American citizen working here is concerned, under the Irish-United States agreement for the avoidance of double taxation US officials stationed at Shannon under the agreement will be exempt from income tax in respect of remuneration paid to them by the US Government.

On transfer of his normal residence to this country a US official could import his property without payment of import charges under the transfer of residence provisions provided such property had been owned and, in the case of

(a) durable goods, used in a country outside the EC by the person concerned at his or her former normal place of residence for at least six months before the date on which the importer ceases to have his or her normal residence outside the EC and

(b) had borne, either in the country of origin or in the country of departure, the customs or fiscal charges to which it is normally liable and which is not the subject, on the grounds of exportation, of any exemption or any refund of such charges.

It is very strictly tied up there. There is no double taxation and it really deals with household goods and other durables that might be coming in provided they have been in the possession for a considerable period of the person who is seeking to have them imported. There may be some other privileges sought by the United States but until further discussions take place we cannot say what they are. As I have said, any privilege granted will be subject to agreement by us.

I welcome the reception given by Senators on all sides to this Bill. It is another initiative for the Shannon area which has been a trail blazer in many respects in the past with very good resultant effects for its area and indeed for the country generally. I hope we are dealing here with a permanent arrangement. There will be an experimental period of four months first but there is much confidence in it amongst the people who should know. I will be very interested to see how it works. It certainly has the goodwill of the Members of this House and I hope that it will live up to expectations.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Next stage?

Professor Dooge

The Minister of State has already indicated that it is hoped that this agreement would be fully enforced by 1 July. Senators have also been informed that there is an early signature motion but Senator Lanigan indicated earlier that he might wish for a separate Committee Stage debate. I do not know what the present position of the Opposition is. If there were to be a separate Committee Stage debate the very latest it could be taken would be first thing tomorrow morning.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 1986