Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 1993

Vol. 138 No. 5

Irish Aviation Authority Bill, 1993: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

I have a query for the Minister of State and I think we should have another look at this section. I am concerned at what is proposed to be done in relation to the first chief executive. That post is apparently as good as filled at the moment, by somebody in the Department. The appointment will be made for a period of seven years and thereafter the board will be involved. Subsection (4) states:

Each subsequent Chief Executive shall be appointed and may be removed from office by the directors of the company after consultation with the Minister.

I would regard that as a proper function of the board. I regret that the Minister does not consider it possible to enable the board to discharge that function in relation to the first appointee to the position.

I can understand the argument about continuity because this section of the Department would be moving under the control of the new Irish Aviation Authority. However, I do not think it is necessary for us to provide for a period of seven years to ensure that continuity and the easy transfer of personnel, duties, obligations and so on. A period of one to two years would be adequate. I am reluctant to deprive the board of their rightful involvement in the appointment of the chief executive. However, I am swayed by the argument of continuity. I believe the time span of seven years is far too long and that one to two years would suffice. Thereafter, the board could discharge its function of appointing the next chief executive.

Mr. Ross

You will forgive me, a Chathaoirligh, if I am repetitious but it is only because I cannot remember what was covered the last day and I doubt if you can either.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the Senator suggesting that I am not——

Mr. Ross

I am suggesting that perhaps you do not pay the due attention to my words you should, a Chathaoirligh. That is all, I am not suggesting anything else. I have slight worries about this seven year period and I do not know what is the basis for it. I would like the Minister of State to explain why it is for such a long period.

I have also worries about the procedures. I wonder why the Minister of State has to appoint the chief executive the first time around, and after that he or she is appointed by the board. In other words, the Minister appoints the first chief executive but when that appointee resigns, dies or leaves office, their replacement is appointed by the board. Is this because the board will not be appointed the first time and there are simultaneous appointments to the board and of the chief executive, or is it because the Minister wishes to have control over the chief executive this time round? I cannot see why the board should not appoint the chief executive on this occasion as well. I cannot see the reason for the inconsistency of one appointment being made by the Minister and the second being made by the board. Perhaps, there is a good chronological reason, otherwise I do not see any reason for it.

My second point relates to subsection (6) which states that:

The Chief Executive shall hold office upon and subject to such terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to remuneration and allowances) as may be determined by the directors of the company after consultation with the Minister and with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

Could the Minister of State tell us what the salary and remuneration of the chief executive will be, his allowances and payments? Could he also indicate whether this is comparable with others in the semi-State sector? How does he think it compares with the private sector?

Mr. Magner

It used to be said that the most effective system of government was dictatorship tempered by assassination. The seven year term is to some extent a little long but it is tempered by the Minister's ability to remove the person.

Mr. Ross

That is not reassurance.

Mr. Magner

It may not reassure Senator Ross but who can? I never remember anybody satisfying Senator Ross, including the leader of his own party, so we do not know what satisfies Senator Ross.

The subsequent appointment will be made in consultation with the Minister. This raises a serious point which is often mentioned by Senator Ross, that is, the line between the paymaster and those who carry out the instructions. The chief executive has a vital function in terms of making that company effective and profitable. Therefore, the paymaster should have some control over who heads the operation.

Senator Ross would not dream of saying that Tony O'Reilly, in Pittsburgh, should not control the appointment of the editor of The Irish Independent because Mr. O'Reilly pays his wages. In this case the Minister, on our behalf, pays the wages and must have a say.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. N. Treacy)

I listened with interest to what has been said on this section both on the last occasion and this afternoon. We have to look at the history of the situation. Since the early 1940s we have been operating successful professional aviation services in this country. ANSO has been there to regulate, guide, professionalise and give that service on behalf of the nation.

We are now commercialising the Civil Service ANSO organisation. It is important in the interest of the taxpayer and the safety of the travelling public that there is continuity in the progression from the Civil Service organisation to the commercial organisation. A board of directors has not been appointed as yet. It is, therefore, vitally important that leadership of the highest calibre is available to head the commercial organisation, preserve continuity and ensure that we can deliver the services. That is why it is provided in the Bill that the chief executive should be appointed by the Minister. The salary of the new chief executive will be commensurate with that of an assistant secretary in a Civil Service Department, which is circa £45,000 per annum.

Senator Howard made a point about the seven year period. Until some years ago, a person appointed to head a Department, a semi-State body or a local authority was appointed for life. The business world is a tough environment and it is important that people bring fresh thinking to the office. The Government decided that all important national positions should have a maximum seven year period of appointment with the right of reappointment.

This Bill is consistent with what has been decided in the past. We have provided for a seven year period to ensure that if it is necessary to introduce fresh thinking, the facility is there. Somebody cannot now take total control of an organisation for their entire life as if they were the only important person in the organisation.

The point was made that the board of directors does not have a say at the start. There is no board of directors in position. They would not have the experience in dealing with aviation matters that is available within ANSO today. It is vitally important to be able to maximise the opportunity for using experience in the new commercial organisation.

Continuity is enabled through the new chief executive. A board of directors will serve with that chief executive for up to seven years and will become proficient, professional people in the area of aviation and aviation policy and will thereafter have a say in the appointment. That is an excellent way of making progress, maintaining the continuity and ensuring that this organisation maintains its regulatory and professional standards. The level of service given in the traditional Civil Service organisation will be incorporated into the new commercial ethos in the future.

Senator Ross rose.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Ross, in fairness we had a long discussion on this. My memory on this section is good despite your——

Mr. Ross

So is mine, specifically on this question.

An Cathaoirleach

I wish to put the question as soon as possible if the Senator wishes to make a further observation.

Mr. Ross

This is a fresh observation. I accept what the Minister has said. However, when he says the board when appointed will not have the experience to appoint the chief executive, I worry for two reasons. First, does that mean that the board will not be appropriately experienced in the aviation sector to make this appointment? Second, what will happen if the Minister establishes this principle? If, for example, the chief executive lasts only a week or two weeks in office, who will then make the appointment? Will the board, despite its inexperience, make the appointment or will the Minister make the appointment? That is an important question.

Mr. N. Treacy

Senator Ross has gone from one extreme to the other. We are maintaining continuity. We have the utmost confidence in the aviation expertise, intellectual capacity and health of the existing staff in ANSO to serve the nation in this regard. They are fine people in their areas of expertise and we do not anticipate difficulties in any aspects of their lives which would render them unable to serve the new organisation.

The new board could not be expected to have the necessary experience of aviation matters to make the appointment. We must all serve, for example, in the Dáil or the Seanad to learn the system and to be informed of how the Oireachtas works. That takes time. We are only human. Consequently, it will be the same in this organisation. After a few months the board will, of course, be au fait with the exigencies of the aviation world and will be well able to make decisions. However, it is not fair to ask its members to make its decisions immediately. They must find their way under the leadership of a chief executive who maintains continuity from the old system to the new.

Mr. Ross

If he only lasts a week or two the board will then have to make that appointment.

Mr. N. Treacy

I do not anticipate such an occurrence.

Mr. Ross

The Minister should anticipate.

Mr. N. Treacy

I understand that but I can assure the House that, in the event of that situation occurring——

Mr. Ross

The Minister is not a doctor.

Mr. N. Treacy

I have the utmost confidence in my ministerial colleague and my colleagues in Government to take the appropriate decisions to deal with whatever situations, large or small, arise.

Mr. Magner

Well said, Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."

An Cathaoirleach

Is section 39 agreed?

Mr. Howard

A Chathaoirligh, if the intention is to operate this way——

An Cathaoirleach

I ask the Senator to withdraw that. The Senator knows that we have had an exhaustive discussion of section 38.

Mr. Howard

We have and section 38 has been disposed of.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Mr. Howard

I was on my feet with regard to section 39.

An Cathaoirleach

I asked if section 38 is agreed. I am now on section 39. We have just started and there are no amendments.

Mr. Howard

I got up to speak to section 39. I understood that the question "That section 39 stand part of the Bill" was put and you said yes.

Mr. Ross

He is right.

An Cathaoirleach

I did not say that. Senator Ross, you are causing great delay on this Bill.

Mr. Mooney

He is mischievous.

Mr. Ross

I resent that remark. I am not causing delay. If the Cathaoirleach thinks that going through legislation line by line is——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is adding fuel now——

Mr. Ross

I resent the remark that we are causing delay.

An Cathaoirleach

——by saying to Senator Howard that section 39 was agreed when it was not agreed——

Mr. Ross

I did not say that.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator did.

Mr. Ross

I said he was right. There has been a constant attempt in the last week to get this Bill through as quickly as possible while Members of the Opposition have been going through it line by line, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Magner

That is not so.

An Cathaoirleach

We are discussing every amendment and section. There are no amendments to section 39. I am allowing Senator Howard, as is his right, to speak to it.

Mr. Magner

We will take this on Christmas Eve if the Senator wishes. That is not a problem.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Howard on section 39.

Mr. Howard

Restraints are imposed on the capacity and freedom of the Authority to operate as it thinks fit in certain circumstances. On Second Stage, the Minister went to considerable lengths to explain the advantages the Authority would enjoy in its new role. I remember commenting on the phrase that they were "freed from the shackles of the Civil Service" and because of that they would be able to operate more effectively. While it might appear, having listened to the Minister on Second Stage, that they were going to be outside the Civil Service, on reading the conditions of the remuneration of the staff in section 39, it becomes obvious that they are not. The same guidelines which apply within the Civil Service apply to the Authority. This Authority must "have regard", according to this section, to

Government or nationally agreed guidelines which are for the time being extant or to Government policy concerning remuneration and conditions of employment.... The company shall comply with any directives with regard to such remuneration, allowances, terms and conditions which the Minister may give to the company with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

The new found freedom which this body was to have had has now been effectively shackled. Everything is linked back to the terms and conditions of employment which preceded its establishment. The control which we were led to believe would no longer affect the freedom of this organisation to do what was beneficial is restored within the terms of this section.

There will be a further impediment to the operation of the Authority. The restrictions imposed in section 39, because of the level of remuneration the board could offer with the consent of the Minister, could inhibit the recruitment of specialist staff whose expertise would be of value to the Authority in developing the responsibilities which have now been handed on to them.

Mr. Mooney

I get the impression that Senator Howard is confusing a fully privatised company with a semi-State body. All semi-State companies — which this will be, it will not be a fully privatised company — must have regard to the guidelines set down by the Government of the day in relation to pay and conditions.

Mr. Ross

An important debate is going on here which underlines the contradictions in the Bill. The Minister talks about the company being commercial, about managerial autonomy — they were the words he used — and other indications of independence, when suddenly the company is subject to Government guidelines. The Minister has already said that the chief executive's remuneration is £45,000 per annum. That is not a commercial salary in terms of the private sector. People who might be capable of doing this job will not be attracted to it because they would be paid more in the private sector. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is a problem which all semi-State bodies have because they do not pay the sort of salary which is commensurate with responsibility.

What does the phrase in section 39 mean —"the company... shall have regard to Government or nationally agreed guidelines which are for the time being extant..."? Does it mean that they shall be compelled to keep within those guidelines or that they shall bear them in mind? This is important. Does it mean they will remain within Government guidelines rigidly or that they shall consider the guidelines as a factor and then make their own decision anyway? I do not quite understand that phrase.

Mr. Burke

It seems the Minister has had great reservations in relation to the transfer and remuneration of staff. Would he outline those reservations to the House?

Mr. N. Treacy

We are talking about two clearly different things. We are talking about a semi-State organisation with a commercial ethos which must perform commercially in the interests of delivering a service and a profitable contribution to its own existence at no burden to the taxpayer. In this section we are also talking about the conditions under which it shall operate when it comes to pay and conditions. The provisions of section 39 are generally in line with the conditions applicable to all semi-State bodies and within those guidelines there will be ample flexibility to fashion current pay rates to the special conditions of the Authority. The Board, the chief executive and the management team will have certain flexibility with regard to the staff they will require and the remuneration they will be paid. We must have stability within the whole pay sector in the public area. It is important that we do not have a situation where one semi-State body "ups the ante", is doing well and is able to attract several people from other semi-State bodies to the detriment of the other organisations.

We have a consensus at national level on pay, how to manage it and the industrial situation that has evolved successfully. Everybody adheres to a consensus and to achieving it and in that light we want to maintain that consensus in line with other semi-State organisations. There will be ample flexibility which will be in the interests of the country to ensure that the consensus agreed under the control of the Minister for Finance who has responsibility for semi-State organisations will be satisfactory to managing this company in a way that will give ample opportunity for its staff to be properly remunerated within the flexibility that is required for success.

Mr. Magner

The use of Government guidelines on pay is one of the many economic levers governments use from time to time as my colleagues opposite will know. In another life the Fine Gael and Labour Coalition used that economic lever many times.

Mr. Ross

Never.

Mr. Mooney

The Senator was not there at the time.

Mr. Magner

That is right. Senator Ross was in the outer stratosphere as an Independent. He is still out there but now he has a label. Senator Howard would agree that in trying to control costs all the Government can do is to indicate to the private sector where the economy stands. Therefore, it is an important economic weapon in its armoury and I am surprised Senator Ross was not jumping three feet off the ground if anybody thought about taking it away.

Mr. Burke

In relation to the criteria laid down for other semi-State bodies such as Coillte and An Post, in this case the Minister had serious reservations about the different criteria and it nearly led to a dispute.

Mr. N. Treacy

With whom was the dispute? I am baffled.

Mr. Burke

I will quote from a recent publication from IMPACT:

The Irish Aviation Authority Bill published on June 28, 1993, gave rise to the possibility of a major industrial dispute with IMPACT members at Irish Airports. All the Unions in Air Navigation Services Office had indicated to the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications that unless the new Bill contained a similar guarantee on the security of tenure for staff transferring to the new semi-State company as that held by staff who had transferred to An Post, Coillte and Telecom, they would embark on a joint campaign of industrial action.

Air Traffic Controllers, Aero Inspectors and Radio Officers, who make up two thirds of staff transferring to the new company, were prepared to take strike action from July 8 onwards in order to secure the necessary amendments to the Bill. The need for industrial action arose because the Government apparently was only prepared to guarantee security and conditions for only as long as transferred staff remained on the same pay rates and within the same grade as they had occupied in the Civil Service. This, in reality, was no guarantee and was a clawback on the conditions offered to staff in other semi-State companies.

Despite numerous meetings with Air Navigation Services Office Management [including a meeting with the Minister of State himself]... and an intensive lobbying compaign of the political parties, it took the threat of industrial action to bring about the required response.

Mr. N. Treacy

I am not anxious to comment on that. The position is clear. The Bill was published and somebody got nervous and there was a number of meetings. I attended one of them and I allayed the fears of the staff on behalf of the Government. The big question was the security of tenure, namely, whether the staff would be guaranteed positions in the new company equal to those they have at the moment they transfer? We gave an absolute guarantee that nobody would be disadvantaged or reduced in position or salary and everybody was satisfied. It must be remembered that there are several unions representing staff in all of these organisations. The same will obtain in the new company. All these unions are members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. They are part of the national consensus and they have several avenues open to them in achieving the consensus we all desire in the interests of industrial relations and industrial peace, which has helped this economy in recent years and which we all deeply appreciate. I am confident that all those fears have been allayed. We can go forward in the knowledge that there is absolute commitment by the staff in co-operation with our Department, working on behalf of the nation to make this a thriving commercial body.

An Cathaoirleach

Is section 39 agreed?

Mr. Howard

The Minister has spoken about flexibility and he has referred to the reservations and the fears I expressed by advising that there is flexibility. It is the wording of this section that will prevail, not the explanation given by the Minister to this House. I am still concerned that restrictions may apply, to the detriment of certain aspects of both the Authority's recruitment policy and the type of personnel required. The Minister has assured me of flexibility but at the end of the day this legislation will determine the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ross

This deals with the transfer of staff from one company to another. Regarding the Minister's rallying cry about the consensus which we all desire for the sake of industrial peace, there are many people who do not seek such consensus. The consensus may well exist between the Minister and his new found friend, Senator Magner.

Mr. N. Treacy

Senator Magner and myself are old friends. We have travelled the world together.

Mr. Ross

The Minister and Senator Magner may be old personal friends but they are also old political enemies and they will be again. The consensus may exist in this instance, but there are taxpayers who have to fund this little joyride——

Mr. Magner

The Senator is trying to wreck a marriage.

Mr. Ross

——on which the Minister has accompanied Senator Magner. There are also the unemployed who have not benefited from this consensus. God help us if we get similar consensus in which the unemployed, with whom the Minister is so concerned and Senator Magner affects concern, are again left out in the cold.

One of the problems about Government guidelines on the transfer and treatment of staff is that the "haves" in society, who include the Minister, Senator Magner and to a lesser extent myself, gain so greatly from those who have not, namely the unemployed. There is a classic example of this in section 40 where civil servants, who are the most privileged employees in the country and for whom extraordinarily beneficial wage agreements have been negotiated in the last few years under the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, are getting another benefit under this Bill.

I have difficulties with legislation enacted specifically for 580 to 600 people who are employed by ANSO and whom it is envisaged will be transferred. When there is specific legislation of that kind it is nearly always bad legislation because it only applies to one company. In other words, it is makeshift legislation introduced specifically to address one problem but not establishing any principles, because that would be dangerous.

I have a question on section 40 (1). That subsection says every person who on the day immediately before the vesting day is a member of the staff of the Air Navigation Services Office of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and is designated by the Minister for employment by the company shall on the vesting day be transferred. Does this mean the Minister will pick and choose or will he transfer everyone already employed by ANSO? Will the Minister be able to take certain people and leave others behind? Who is going and who is not?

I also have a question on section 40 (2) because I have difficulties with people being guaranteed jobs for life. The subsection says that people will be given the same benefits in their new jobs as in their old ones and certainly not lesser benefits. This applies specifically to tenure, the time for which they will be guaranteed service. Could the Minister say exactly what those benefits are and if there are any additions? If something is said to be not less than an existing arrangement and is also being left to negotiation with the unions, it seems the people being transferred cannot lose. They cannot receive fewer benefits and since the agreement is subject to negotiation the unions will make a deal for something better. What are the specific terms which have to be negotiated, since the workers will not be worse off no matter what happens?

Mr. Magner

The contributions from the other side are causing me immense difficulties. I understand Senator Howard's position. He is enunciating Fine Gael policy and it is consistent. It is when the independent research unit headed by Senator Ross intervenes that confusion arises. He has the unique gymnastic ability to face both ways on one issue. A few minutes ago he said the chief executive's salary of circa £45,000, equivalent to an assistant secretary's salary, is not enough. He asked what sort of fool would do the job. The answer is the same sort of fool who has run semi-State bodies and the Civil Service since the foundation of the State — dedicated, talented public servants. On the other hand Senator Ross also complains about jobs for life at great wages. He should make up his mind. Either we are ripping off the people who work for us or we are not.

Mr. Burke

The Minister is asking those questions.

Mr. Magner

I would give more credence to the views of Senator Howard than to those of the independent research unit. Apart from trying to disrupt the marriage on this side, Senator Ross is not making much progress.

Mr. Ross

I can assure the Senator we are much more happily married than he is.

Mr. N. Treacy

I have two points in response to Senator Ross. There is nothing makeshift about this Bill, about the new company, or about what we want to achieve. The salaries and expenses of the new company will not be funded by the taxpayer, they will be funded by the users. I have made this abundantly clear since we first started this Bill nearly six months ago.

Mr. Magner

Senator Howard accepts that. That is not a problem.

Mr. N. Treacy

As to what staff will be transferred, almost all will be transferred on vesting day. That means the staff employed as civil servants, working in the special division of ANSO as part of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications on the day before vesting day, will be automatically transferred on the following day to the new company, save where the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications wishes to retain a specialist unit to advise him on aviation matters, to investigate accidents and to carry out various other regulatory and advisory functions. Only a small segment of specialist people will be retained. The Minister will decide who they are.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 41.

Mr. Howard

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 30, subsection (12), line 2, to delete "7" and substitute "2".

Having read the Bill, listened to the Minister and read the discussion of the select committee and the Report Stages of the Bill, both I and the members of the staff have not been reassured that the superannuation fund coming into existence will be adequate or will cater for the likely demands that may arise on it during the early years of the Authority's functioning.

In one of the papers last Sunday week, I was concerned to read a statement from the organisation representing the air traffic controllers. One part of it especially concerned me, which indicated that because of the age profile of those transferring from the Civil Service to the new Authority, a minimum of 10 per cent would reach retirement age during the early years of the Authority's operation. There was serious concern about this because section 41 of this Bill requires the Minister to make a contribution to the fund not later than seven years after the vesting day.

It may well be — I know it has been alluded to in discussions elsewhere — that there will be a number of stage payments or instalments over that period, but there is no requirement in the Bill for such instalments. The only requirement on the State or the Minister for Finance would be to make a payment to the fund not later than seven years after the vesting day. I put down this amendment to make sure that this percentage of transferring staff, who will reach retirement age in the earlier years of the Authority's existence, will have a pension fund that will be adequately funded. I am interested in hearing the Minister's response to my amendment.

In conclusion, I reassure Senator Magner that there is no gulf in the presentation of views from this side. The responsibility of the Opposition is to examine legislation in detail. Because we are trying to fulfil our duty, we——

Mr. Ross

Senator Howard is on his own now.

Mr. Howard

——should not be harried or accused of other motives. Our obligation is to examine the legislation. On Second Stage, I indicated that the amount of time devoted to this measure in the other House and in the select committee was not provided here. We were not given the opportunity for the same detailed examination. We are fulfilling a useful role on behalf of the State and of those who will be employed in this body in subjecting the legislation and the Minister's presentation of it to this examination. We are doing nothing more than fulfilling our duty.

Mr. N. Treacy

The amendment proposes that the Minister for Finance will have two rather than seven years to pay the authority's pension fund an amount to cover the accrued pension entitlements of civil servants transferred to the authority. I refer the House to subsection (12) which explicitly states that payments under subsection (10) or (11) shall be made not later than seven years after the vesting day. It is binding on the Minister for Finance to make his contribution not later than seven years. The sum involved will be determined by an actuarial valuation to be carried out after vesting day. It is estimated to be approximately £60 million. For Exchequer financing reasons the Government has decided that seven years is an appropriate term within which this payment must be made. I do not accept that the section should be changed to require that payment to be made earlier.

If we consider how long ANSO has served the country, the requirement to pay these superannuation contributions has built up over a number of years. The Minister for Finance, the Department of Finance and the Government accept that the contributions should be made. If it took so many years to build up the contributions, it is only fair, in a financial mechanism or funding arrangement, that a flexible period of time should be given to the Minister for Finance to discharge his obligations on behalf of the State and the staff for whom the contributions will be made. Therefore the Government has agreed on a ceiling of seven years, which is a maximum period to transfer and dispose of the financial responsibility which has accrued over a long period of time. This is reasonable.

The Minister for Finance will pay interest from vesting day on any unpaid balance of the amount due. In other words, if it is decided to pay seven equal tranches over seven years, then once the first payment is made the interest due on the other six tranches must be discharged also. This creates an imposition on the Minister for Finance and the Exchequer. It guarantees the fund and the maximisation of the value of the fund by paying the interest thereon and it creates an option for the Minister for Finance to discharge it in total, in different tranches, in greater amounts or in one single amount. This is also important. It will be an advantage to the Exchequer for payment to be made in full as soon as it is practicable. It also means that the delay in payment will not involve the pension fund in any loss of income. This copperfastens and protects the fund.

Senator Howard asked how the authority will finance the pensions of staff who retire. He mentioned the age profile and that approximately 10 per cent of the staff may retire in the first few years of the Authority. The user charges and fees which the Authority receives include a superannuation element which will meet the pensions due in this period. It is important to note that at the end of each year Eurocontrol will make the balance of its contribution available for user charges to ANSO. The new Authority will consider this in a positive manner and it will allocate some of these funds to the pension fund so as to ensure that the fund can be established, trustees can be appointed and, through the Minister for Finance, moneys will be lodged in that fund to keep it in position. This will mean that ample money will be available at all times to pay pensions for those who retire between now and the seven year conclusion.

Mr. Howard

The Minister did not reject the point I made that the legislation obliges the Minister to pay the contribution of £60 million not later than seven years from the vesting day. Am I being fair to the Minister if I say he has not denied that the Minister for Finance may not pay the £60 million until seven years after the vesting day? My interpretation of what the Minister has said is that there are circumstances where not one penny of the £60 million will be paid before that date.

The Minister said that once the first tranche is paid interest will arise on the remaining money, if a decision is taken to pay the £60 million in six or seven tranches over that period. This could be open to the interpretation that unless a payment was made the requirement to pay interest on the balance would not arise. If that was the position, by not making any payment there would be no obligation to pay interest.

There is another matter I want explained. If no payment is made by the Minister for Finance there seems to be an acceptance that the resources to pay the pensions of the 10 per cent of staff who may retire in the earlier years could be made up through the superannuation segment of the user charges. I dispute that and I want to be satisfied that in the absence of payment from the Minister for Finance the sources the Minister indicated would be adequate to meet the requirements in that period.

Mr. Burke

Senator Howard is correct. That would also be my interpretation of what the Minister said. Section 41 (45) (10) states:

The Minister for Finance shall determine an appropriate contribution, related to reckonable service given before the vesting day, towards the superannuation benefits which may be granted to or in respect of persons who are transferred to the staff of the company under section 40 and shall, subject to subsection (12), pay such contribution to the trustees appointed under subsection (9) at such times and in such manner as he shall determine.

The Minister knows the situation regarding an announcement by the previous Government in relation to PRSI contributions by farmers. A farmer is legally bound to pay PRSI at age 56 but the contributions he will pay in the ten years from age 56 to his 66th birthday are of no benefit to him. I hope for that reason alone that this section has been well thought out and that the workers in this company will be at no loss. Senator Howard has expressed fear about the section and I agree with him. The Minister must be well aware what happened in relation to farmers between the ages of 56 and 66. The money they are paying in PRSI contributions will be of no benefit to them.

Mr. N. Treacy

I would prefer not to deal with social welfare matters but I wish to respond to Senator Burke. He is not correct in what he says about farmers' PRSI contributions. It is obligatory on all farmers to pay such contributions.

Mr. Burke

That is right.

Mr. N. Treacy

If one reads the obligation in detail and the benefits from that obligation, it is quite clear that a farmer who is paying PRSI contributions for ten years or more shall qualify for a contributory pension on reaching the age of 66.

Mr. Burke

Not after 56.

Mr. N. Treacy

If he is paying PRSI contributions for ten years or more he will qualify. If one reads on, it further states that a farmer is paying PRSI for three years or more and has a spouse, that spouse will qualify for a contributory pension on the death of her husband, or vice versa, depending——

Mr. Howard

That is the bright side of it.

Mr. N. Treacy

——on who is paying the contributions. The law must begin and there has to be an initial date. There is evolution.

Mr. Burke

I will give the benefit of the doubt.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. N. Treacy

As time evolves, the credits build up and there is always a little anomaly for three to four years or perhaps more in situations like this. Once they are in the scheme for a period of time the benefits accrue to those who are discharging their obligations under the Act. There is difficulty when a law comes in but it has to start somewhere. Some people may not benefit.

Mr. Burke

So there could be a defect in this also.

Mr. N. Treacy

No, this is totally different. We are talking here about permanent staff who have Civil Service status. We are transferring those staff from the Civil Service to a commercial body and they have copperfastened guarantees that they shall not be disadvantaged in any way as a result of the transfer.

Senator Howard is partially correct if one takes it in the narrowest legal context possible. The Minister for Finance could decide not to make a contribution until the seventh year, when he would then be liable to pay £60 million plus the accruing interest thereon. That would be foolish. He has to pay accrued interest from the vesting day. Subsection (11) states: "Where any part of the contribution under subsection (10) remains unpaid for any period after the vesting day, interest shall be payable by the Minister for Finance to the trustees..." That is clear. He is obliged and accepts that. We have had discussions with the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance and I have examined this matter in detail.

I am satisfied that Eurocontrol are making their regular contributions in a very professional manner, that we are using those contributions wisely in ANSO, and that ANSO is making the relevant arrangements to ensure that it discharges its obligations within the new company. Regarding the trustees, until vesting day the provisions of this legislation cannot come into force. After vesting day there are legal obligations on management, in consultation with the Minister, to take appropriate action. I am also confident that when the Book of Estimates is published for 1994, which shall not be too far away, it will take account of an obligation on the Minister for Finance to make his first discharge under this Bill to the superannuation fund. We are leaving nothing to chance. We are acting in the interests of the nation——

Mr. Ross

As always.

Mr. N. Treacy

——and discharging our obligations on behalf of the taxpayer to staff who are entitled to the proper facilities, services, remuneration and pension protection.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is amendment No. 6 being pressed?

Mr. Howard

I will be as easy as I can on the Minister. I note that he has been gradually abandoned.

Mr. N. Treacy

The Senator is always a gentleman. I never feel alone in this House and I have my young colleague from Cork.

Mr. Howard

Of course, Senator Crowley is discharging a most valuable function here. If he was not here I would be prompted to take other action.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Howard on amendment No. 6.

Mr. Howard

Of course, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. The Minister has practically satisfied me, except on one question regarding the requirement to pay interest as from vesting day.

Mr. N. Treacy

It is obligatory.

Mr. Howard

Yes, but I want an assurance from the Minister regarding when and at what point interest will arise. Interest could accumulate and need not be paid until the end of the seven years. I want to establish that there is a requirement in the legislation that the interest be paid on, perhaps, an annual basis.

Mr. N. Treacy

The interest arises from day one. From vesting day interest arises. Negotiations will then take place between the Minister for Finance and his staff and the new body. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications will also have a say. This will ensure that there is an equitable discharge of interest commensurate with the fund. There will be no escaping from the interest clause.

Mr. Howard

Is that provided for in the legislation?

Mr. N. Treacy

Yes, it is provided in the legislation that the Minister is obliged to pay the interest.

Mr. Burke

When?

Mr. N. Treacy

He will have to make his contributions. This is a matter to be agreed by the Minister for Finance and the new Authority. They will agree to professional and appropriate arrangements which will ensure the Minister discharges all obligations in this regard. The section is designed to create flexibility for the Minister. It would allow the Minister to transfer a surplus to the fund in a situation where a surplus from a semi-State body is transferred to the Exchequer. It ensures flexibility on both sides and it is important for careful and prudent financial management of Exchequer affairs.

Mr. Howard

I would like confirmation of one minor point which could become a major one if the worst scenario arises where the Minister does not make a contribution of £60 million until the end of the seventh year from vesting day. As this legislation stands this is possible. I ask the Minister for an assurance that a requirement will be included in the legislation to ensure accrued interest is paid in instalments. A situation could arise where the capital sum and the accrued interest would not be paid until the end of the seventh year. In such a situation, one would be dealing with an under-funded pension fund.

Mr. Ross

Senator Howard raised an important point. He pointed out the possibility that under this legislation interest might not be paid until the end of the seventh year. That is not an abnormal commercial transaction. In financial slang it is known as a bullet payment, one simply defers interest until the last day. This often suits people particularly in commercial life where they do not have the money to pay interest, although they anticipated having it. It also suits governments and this is what worries me; this is no reflection on the Minister so I do not want him to get defensive. Governments, regardless of hue or political shade, may defer payments until some other poor unfortunate must find £60 million plus accrued interest further down the road. I accept the Minister's assurance that there will be a provision of £12 million in the next budget for this — at least he has made representations in this regard. I notice the Minister is waving his hands——

Mr. N. Treacy

The Senator said £12 million.

Mr. Ross

The Minister said an amount consistent with annual payments plus interest.

Mr. N. Treacy

I said an appropriate amount.

Mr. Ross

I am worried that only one payment might be made and that no payment will made for the next six years. Senator Howard was right when he made this important point. There is too much flexibility on the Government side, but there is none on the other side. The temptation is there for any Minister for Finance or anyone else to postpone payments so as to remove an immediate worry. In two or three years time in a politically dangerous situation, or in five years time when another Government is in power, there is a danger that a Minister or Government will decide to defer the payment of £60 million for another four or five years. That would be a saving of £36 million.

Another point relevant to this amendment relates to the rate of interest to be charged. Whatever about payments which will be made eventually — there is a commitment in the legislation that it will be made — section 41 (11) states:

Where any part of the contribution under subsection (10) remains unpaid for any period after the vesting day, interest shall be payable by the Minister for Finance to the trustees appointed under subsection (9) at such a rate as the Minister for Finance may determine in respect of the period on the amount so unpaid. It is unacceptable to give such a power to the Minister for Finance.

Why should the Minister for Finance, the borrower of this money, decide the rate of interest to be paid? It is outrageous. A formula where the rate of interest is related to the Central Bank's short term facility rate, the cost of living index or something outside the arbitrary power of the Minister for Finance should be included in this legislation. I reserve the right to put down an amendment to this effect on Report Stage. I do not know whether such a provision is included in other legislation. I am sure the Minister will tell me this is normal in legislation relating to semi-State bodies. However, it is unacceptable that the Minister for Finance should determine the rate of interest in this regard. It should be calculated on a less partisan basis, such as the STF rate or the cost of living index.

Mr. Crowley

Senator Ross's contribution reminds me of a Kerryman's definition of the parliamentary opposition making a short story long. Section 41 (11) obliges the Minister to pay interest. Under subsection (12) the Minister is obliged to make payments not later than seven years after the vesting day. That closes the matter. Senator Ross said flexibility was on the Government side but with that flexibility comes the obligatory action which it must take in paying the interest and the amount due in the vested period. The matter should rest.

Mr. N. Treacy

It would be unwise for the Minister for Finance to allow a situation where he would be liable to pay the new company £60 million plus accumulating interest to drift for seven years. This would put a burden on the Exchequer in the seventh year totalling approximately £100 million. Normal financial management of the Exchequer would not allow that situation to arise. It could not sustain that situation as it would put considerable pressure on the Exchequer. Consequently, this is what we have put into the Bill.

I am surprised by the way the House has approached the issue. The Minister for Finance will discharge his liability over seven years. In contrast, where this has happened in other bodies, for example, An Post and Telecom Éireann, no finite period is imposed on the Minister for Finance to discharge comparable liabilities. In regard to the two comparable bodies established under the Telecommunications Act, 1983, the onus is on the Minister for Finance to discharge the liabilities as they become due for people retiring.

In regard to the legislation, we have made a positive step forward. A figure is owed and a maximum period is laid down. We negotiated the payment of this figure over a certain period and we are confident it will be shown in the Book of Estimates. There is an interest penalty for not discharging in totality and the residue will be discharged by agreement over the period. When a corporate organisation is set up consultants, advisers and actuaries will advise it on liabilities owed. The Minister for Finance has the Central Bank, the National Treasury Management Agency and the Department of Finance to advise him.

Mr. Ross

God help him.

Mr. N. Treacy

It is normal in the discharge of his constitutional obligations as the custodian of Exchequer finances that it is his decision. A positive man with a great Department will see the necessity to ensure that he discharges his obligation in a way that puts no burden on the Exchequer, within reason, and also ensures that he underpins the superannuation fund for the excellent staff of the new corporate body.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is amendment No. 6 being pressed?

Mr. Ross

No.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We have spent a lot of time on this amendment. I would ask you to be brief.

Mr. Ross

That is what we are here for.

Mr. Howard

It would appear, as it is developing, that we might be spending even more time on it. I will not be pressing my amendment for two reasons.

Mr. N. Treacy

I am very grateful to the Senator.

Mr. Ross

It is not for the Minister's sake.

Mr. Howard

I will not be pressing the amendment today, but I hope to move a broader amendment on Report Stage because, as the discussion developed it became obvious that my amendment was inadequate in what it seeks to achieve. May I explain that? I would issue an invitation to the Minister——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I take it that the Senator is withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Howard

I am giving my reasons and at the conclusion of my remarks I will inform the Chair of the position. I invite the Minister to consider the difficulties we have pointed out. The amendment seeks to oblige the Minister to pay the sum of £60 million within a two-year period rather than seven years. I am concerned that the legislation will be the means by which any enforcement can be effected. As the Minister has freely admitted, the option is there should the Minister for Finance so decide not to make the payment until the end of the seventh year. Unfortunately, as emerged in the discussion, that option is also available to the Minister in relation to interest. Therefore, in view of the fact that my amendment does not cover the situation with regard to subsection (11) and the payment of interest, there is no obligation to pay the interest before the end of the seventh year. It may well be done over a shorter period.

Senator Ross raised the question of the rate of interest. There are three distinct problems arising in relation to this superannuation fund. There is the £60 million, the interest — which may or may not be paid and which does not have to be paid, should the Minister so decide, until the end of the seventh year, and the rate of interest. That has been the value of having a good debate on this measure.

I am always conscious of the usual fate of Opposition amendments, no matter how effective the argument may be in their favour. We have identified a potentially serious weakness and I would invite the Minister to take the necessary steps to rectify the situation on Report Stage.

I do not want anyone in this House to be looked upon as neglecting the vital interests of what could be a vulnerable group of people, those coming up to early retirement. I am withdrawing my amendment because it is too narrow and does not cover the issues raised. I will consider moving another amendment on Report Stage to cover the issue about which I am concerned. In the meantime, I hope the Minister can see his way towards eliminating the reasons for my concern.

Mr. N. Treacy

I am very grateful for the Senator's invitation and I will give further reflection to this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 41 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ross

There seems to be a rush to get this Bill through. I can understand that, but there are one or two questions that I would like to ask the Minister on this section. It might be assisted by the fact that he has been deserted by Senator Magner who——

Mr. N. Treacy

No, my spokesman is here.

Mr. Ross

——has left the Chamber but has been replaced by a member of his own party.

Mr. N. Treacy

An excellent member.

Mr. Ross

An excellent member of the Minister's own party, yes. They are all excellent.

Mr. Mooney

I do not think it is very fair to make remarks of that nature: the Leas-Chathaoirleach might address himself to Senator Ross.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should not refer to the absence of a Member.

Mr. Ross

I apologise for that, Sir.

Mr. Mooney

Nor are we attempting to rush the Bill through.

Mr. N. Treacy

No rush.

Mr. Mooney

You made that point earlier. The Chairman is in the Chair.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ross on section 41.

Mr. Ross

The Minister failed, I gather, to answer the important point in subsection (11) about the rate of interest. This is vital. There may be a formula which is worked out and always used in semi-State bodies but I am not aware of it. I did ask the Minister specifically to answer the question whether he would link the rate of interest to the short term facility rate of the Central Bank, the one month money market rates or any of the standard rates that are used because subsection (11) is so extraordinarily loose now.

As I read it, it allows the Minister to pay back the £60 million, plus accrued interest in seven years, at any date in that period to be determined by him and at any rate of interest to be determined by him. With the best will in the world, if he was acting in the interests of the taxpayer, any Minister would pay the lowest possible rate of interest. If not, he will be in a dilemma because of a conflict of interests. In addition, he may, out of self-interest, pay it back at the last possible date. I am not particularly reassured by the Minister's statement that he will have the NTMA, the Central Bank and the Department of Finance to advise him, because their record of advice to the Exchequer this year has not been particularly good, a point already covered in this debate.

Mr. N. Treacy

I could not accept that.

Mr. Ross

They cost the State £900 million because of bad advice over devaluation. Maybe they have a lot of savings. They have a lot of ground to make up, and maybe they will make it in this area but it will only be in the region of £30 million or £40 million; it will not be the £900 million they have cost the State already. Maybe the Minister should look elsewhere for advice on matters of this sort because their record so far has been disastrous.

As well as the question of interest, I would also like to ask the Minister about trustees. The company establishing this fund is to be administered by trustees. How will these trustees be appointed? Who are they likely to be? What qualifications will the trustees of the pension fund normally have? Will they be covered and passed by the pensions board, or will they simply be appointed by the company?

Mr. N. Treacy

I thought I had covered the point about the Minister for Finance's obligations in total. I thought I had made it clear that there is absolute commitment. This is a new step forward and was never covered in legislation before. There is a formula where we have agreed, the total obligation of the Minister for Finance is £60 million. There is a mechanism where the rates of interest and method of payment can be operated. It is a matter of negotiation on the formula that is already there. With his constitutional obligations as the custodian of the finances of the nation in law, the Minister for Finance is responsible for determining these matters. He will take the final decision based on what has been agreed. That is the fundamental legal and political discharge of his duty.

Senator Ross asked about trustees. Trustees will be members of the staff and will be appointed under the Pensions Act.

Mr. Ross

That is fine, that is the answer I wanted. We will probably deal with this on Report Stage. However, the mechanisms of Report Stage are so structured that it is difficult to elicit a specific answer from a recalcitrant Minister.

Mr. N. Treacy

I did not hear the epithet the Senator used in relation to the Minister.

Mr. Ross

"Recalcitrant". The Minister may not have been in the House that day. I am worried that he referred to an existing mechanism for setting the interest rate. What is this mechanism? He said there will be negotiation of that formula. Who will conduct this negotiation? My understanding is that it is the Minister for Finance's obligation, on behalf of the taxpayer, to pay the lowest possible interest rate because taxpayers' money will pay the interest on this fund. The Minister will pay as little as possible. He will fix a very low interest rate which will not be in the interests of pensioners who are paid from the superannuation fund. There is a direct conflict of interest here. If the Minister fixes a rate which is in the interest of the superannuation fund it will be too high for the taxpayer. If he fixes a rate which is in the interests of the taxpayer it will be too low for the superannuation fund. I do not understand how this formula will be devised.

Mr. N. Treacy

It is important to reflect on the Minister for Finance's responsibilities. Of course he discharges his obligations on behalf of taxpayers and is obliged to obtain the best deal on their behalf. He will not confine himself to any fixed positions. The Minister's decision will be based on the information available to him, the agreement which is reached and the finding of a professional, actuarial assessment that £60 million is required. Negotiations will take place between officials from ANSO and subsequently from the Irish Aviation Authority and Department of Finance officials. A recommendation will be made to the Minister and his decision will be based on this. It will be a matter for him whether he agrees with this recommendation in its entirety.

If there is a subsequent difficulty it will be the responsibility of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, to ensure a decision is made. Such interaction and collaboration is part of the normal political process by which Governments make decisions. I have no doubt the Minister for Finance will discharge his obligations equitably and fairly, taking into account his constitutional responsibilities, his financial responsibilities to the taxpayer and his responsibilities to the staff of ANSO and, subsequently, the staff of the Irish Aviation Authority.

Mr. Ross

I will be moving an amendment on Report Stage because I find the Minister's response particularly unsatisfactory. Section 41 (13) states that "moneys required to be paid by the Minister for Finance under this section shall be advanced out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof". Is this a normal, legal legislative phrase?

Mr. N. Treacy

Yes, it is standard.

Mr. Ross

I am not suggesting an amendment but could the phrase "or the growing produce thereof" be easily taken out? Is it a normal legal phrase which needs no explanation?

Mr. N. Treacy

It is a normal legal phrase. It refers to increases in the Central Fund resulting from a buoyant economy. Moneys required to be paid by the Minister can be advanced out of this growing produce.

Mr. Ross

In effect, this means the Central Fund?

Mr. N. Treacy

It is the same fund.

Mr. Ross

I have a worry in relation to section 41 (14). This states that "a scheme under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made...". Various Bills passed by this House, in particular the Companies Bill, specify that reports and schemes are to be laid before the House as soon as may be after they are available or made. Such wording is too vague. I refer specifically to the report which the Stock Exchange must give to the Department of Finance. It takes an extraordinarily long time for this report to be laid before the Oireachtas and reach the Library.

Why is the wording so vague? Is there any time limit by which this scheme should be laid before the House? Can it be delayed for years? A reasonable time limit for such a scheme should be three or four weeks. It takes years for some schemes, papers and reports to be laid before the House. Could the Minister assure us that, once this legislation is passed and the scheme agreed, it will be laid before the House within a reasonable time limit such as one, two or three months?

Mr. N. Treacy

Section 41 (14) is similar to subsections of previous Bills. There must be a scheme in position to facilitate somebody who wishes to retire from the company, particularly when they have reached their retirement date, otherwise the person could not be paid, would be discriminated against and would have a very strong legal case against the authority and the State. We must proceed with the scheme. As of now ANSO is working on it. We are confident it will be positive, flexible, and solid and will confer the proper benefits on the staff of the company. When it is agreed and put in position, it will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It will operate thereafter unless a resolution annulling it is passed by the Oireachtas within 21 days.

Mr. Ross

The Minister has not answered my question. I would like an assurance, not about its operation, flexibility or other positive aspects — I am sure the Minister's assurances on these will come to pass — but about the time limit in which it will be laid before the House. The wording "as soon as may be after it is made" is clumsy and all embracing. Some of the flexibility of this legislation is absolutely unacceptable and totally lax. It provides for ministerial power which is unacceptable and far too vague and wide. The time limit is far too long; it is open ended. Could the Minister introduce some time limit, even three months, in which we know the scheme will be laid before the House? This time limit is infinite and could take 20 years.

Mr. N. Treacy

The assurance is we will deliver this quam celerime. In legislation the words “as soon as may be” mean without delay. First, this scheme is dependent on vesting day. Secondly, it is dependent on agreement being reached between the employer, which is the authority, and the staff organisations and unions representing the staff. I cannot foretell when vesting day will be until this Bill is passed or how long the negotiations will take. It would be unfair to the staff and the authority to set a date by which negotiations should be completed. The Senator can be certain we want to establish the scheme rapidly.

Mr. Ross

The wording states "as soon as may be after it is made". I am not talking about vesting day or anything else. I am saying once the scheme is agreed — the Minister is outlining the preparatory problems in agreeing it — we should specify a date. This has nothing to do with the difficulties in negotiating the scheme or its features. Once it is agreed can we not get an assurance on the date on which it will be laid before the House? I am trying to point out the danger that, once it is agreed, five years could elapse before it is laid before the House?

Mr. Mooney

Is Senator Ross suggesting that if a specific date is inserted in the legislation and the component parts referred to by the Minister are completed, for example, on 15 July, this and the other House should be recalled in order to have the scheme laid before them and the resolution debated and passed?

Mr. Ross

I am glad Senator Mooney asked that question. It is so absurd.

Mr. Mooney

That is why Senator Ross's original proposals are equally absurd. All he is doing is delaying unnecessarily; this is just waffle.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ross, very briefly.

Mr. Ross

I am simply asking for a date. We can have six or four months; we can have a date which is convenient after a certain recess is over, if that would suit Senator Mooney. I am asking for a date, a time limit, so that there is no infinite period which is what this legislation allows. Second, I will not take accusations of using delaying tactics from Senator Mooney when a Bill is being discussed line by line. If Senator Mooney wants to sit there like a stuffed dummy, he is entitled to so do.

Mr. Mooney

That remark should be withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will have to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Ross

I withdraw it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I ask the Minister of State to reply to the points made by Senator Ross on the section.

Mr. Mooney

I think it is reprehensible that personal abuse is now part of the Senator's repertoire.

Mr. Ross

I withdraw the remark but it is the duty——

Mr. Mooney

Is personal abuse now part of the Senator's repertoire? I have asked for the protection of the Chair.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ross withdrew his remark.

Mr. Ross

It is the duty of the Opposition to take legislation line by line.

Mr. Mooney

Not to indulge in personal abuse.

Mr. Ross

I am sorry if it antagonises Government Members that the Opposition is taking the legislation line by line——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would ask the Senator to address his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Ross

We will get through it as quickly as possible for Senator Mooney, but not that quickly.

Mr. N. Treacy

The House is fully aware that I have come here on many occasions. I have never rushed through legislation, I do not want to rush through legislation and I hope that we sit until midnight tonight. I am prepared to do that to assist the House, to be available to the House, to give Members every opportunity to debate and discuss this and to be as co-operative and informative as possible. I want to assure the House that when all the various components of this superannuation situation are put together it will rapidly be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 42.

Question proposed: "That section 42 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

I want to assure the House that it is not my purpose, or that of Senator Ross, to filibuster. We are examining legislation which took six days to go through the other House. I think the Minister of State has accepted that from us and he has let us intervene there. I want clarification of section 42 which states:

Whenever the company requests the Minister to acquire land or a right of impounding, diverting or abstracting water, the Minister, if he is satisfied that such land or right is required by the company for the purpose of the performance of its functions, shall acquire the land or right.

I do not know what is intended here. The terms used conjure up all sorts of images of extraordinary happenings. With the proliferation of certain groups, the imagination of people could know no bounds if one talks about "impounding, diverting or abstracting water". That could involve the draining of a lake, the creation of a new lake or the filling in of a bay. I want to know what is intended or to what these terms refer in the context of this legislation. Finally, I assume — and I simply want the Minister of State to confirm — that in any of these operations of impounding, diverting or abstracting water, the terms of the planning Acts apply.

Mr. N. Treacy

The purpose of this section is to maintain uniformity and conformity with the 1936 Act. The terms used were originally used in the 1936 Act and we want the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to have the same powers. Of course, he or she has to conform in any of their decisions with the planning laws. The normal procedure is that powers such as this are left with the Minister, rather than handing on other powers to the Authority which would have major legislative and constitutional effects pertaining to the rights of the individual, property rights so on. The Minister for Defence has similar powers in relation to property of the Department of Defence. In this situation we are retaining the powers of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.

Mr. Ross

I am concerned about this section because I assume it just refers to the Minister's power to make a compulsory purchase order of land or in regard to water. I know the Minister said that this provision is in legislation enacted since 1936 but I find it difficult to reconcile this with the ministerial statement and the purpose of this Bill which is that this body should be commercially operating. We are seeing again the operation of a monopoly. Section 42, on the acquisition of land, basically gives ANSO, through the Minister, the power to ride roughshod over anybody at any time because the Minister will have the power to acquire land.

However, the commercial aspects worry me more. The price of the acquisition will be decided by the Minister. In effect, what is being called a commercial company will decide itself, through the Minister, the price of several of its purchases. Could the Minister of State give any assurances about the acquisition of land, the price which will be paid, whether public inquiries will be allowed and if it will go through the normal procedures of compulsory acquisition? Is that what is intended?

Mr. N. Treacy

It is important that we reflect again on the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, and a similar Act in 1950 when these powers were conferred on the Minister of the day. They have served the nation well and we believe it is prudent on this occasion to leave the powers with the Minister, to enshrine that in the Act and to make it crystal clear that the powers are with the Minister rather than the Authority. The effect of this section is to provide that the Minister may use his compulsory acquisition powers to acquire land for the company if he is satisfied that the company needs the land to carry out its functions.

Section 36 of the Principal Act — the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936 — sets out the purposes for which the Minister may acquire land compulsorily. These are to ensure that land near an aerodrome is not so used as to be a danger to aircraft and public safety and that trees and buildings on land adjacent to an aerodrome are demolished if necessary in the interests of public safety and — added by section 6 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1950 — for any purpose related to the development of civil aviation where such development affects an aerodrome or any land adjacent to an aerodrome.

It was decided that the Minister should be enabled to use his compulsory acquisition powers on behalf of the company rather than giving such powers directly to the company on the grounds that it is preferable not to extend the number of bodies which can exercise such rights in relation to other people's property. While requiring that the Minister must be satisfied that the company needs the land concerned for the performance of its functions, we intend to keep the use of this power to a minimum.

Obviously, there will be negotiation and arbitration and a consensus will be arrived at in most cases, but we are leaving the power with the Minister rather than giving it to the Authority, which will have the right to discharge it in totality without reference to the Minister. In this case, it cannot do it without consultation with the Minister who will take the final decision. That is a safety valve in the interests of people's rights and in the best interests of public safety.

Mr. Ross

To what form of arbitration is the Minister of State referring in this case? I have difficulties with the company — the purchaser — deciding, through the Minister, the price of land it wants to acquire. There are reassurances in what the Minister of State said. However, about what sort of arbitration is he speaking?

Mr. N. Treacy

Section 41 (3) of the 1936 Act states:

Before making an order under this section, the Minister—

(a) shall deposit and keep open for inspection at some suitable place (public notice of which shall be given) such plans, specifications and other documents as will show fully and clearly the land or right intended to be acquired or used by virtue or the order;

(b) shall give notice, in such manner as he may consider best adapted for informing persons likely to be affected by the order, of his intention to consider the making thereof and of the manner in which representations and objections in respect of the order may be made, and

(c) shall, if he considers it expedient so to do, cause a public inquiry to be held in regard to the making of the order.

It is wise and fair.

Mr. Ross

The Minister's reply is totally satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.

SECTION 45.

Question proposed: "That section 45 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mooney

On Second Stage the Minister made a welcome commitment that there would be no charge for rescue services. I would be grateful if he would clarify if it is under this section that the commitment will be addressed.

Mr. N. Treacy

I can confirm what I said on Second Stage. Senator Mooney is correct; our commitment stands under this section.

Mr. Ross

I presume that is what is referred to in section 45 (1) and (2) and that the exemption from charges is exclusively meant for rescue services. I would like reassurance that this is not meant for anything else. If it is meant for rescue services alone that would be fine.

I would be uneasy if exemption could be granted by the Minister for anything outside rescue services. I would like him to tell us if there are any other categories which come under this section. Are certain other aircraft carrying foreign visitors or possibly representatives of foreign governments not to be charged? I worry about political control in this area and especially political interference in the area of commerce.

Paragraph (c) states:

The Minister shall pay to the company an amount equal to the amount of any costs incurred by it in the provision of services or the performance of functions to which an exemption specified in a direction under the subsection relates.

Could the Minister tell me how those costs are to be calculated? Are they to be the costs the company charged the visiting aircraft or what it cost the company? Will the profit the company would have made be taken into account or will it be the cost price?

I have an uneasy feeling about this Bill because the explanatory memorandum claims there will not be any cost to the Exchequer. It seems there are certain provisions in the Bill which will cost the Exchequer money, including this provision, superannuation payments and future payments of that sort. There are costs involved which will be a burden on the Exchequer in the future.

Mr. N. Treacy

Under the Multilateral Agreement on Route Charges, Conditions of Application of the Route Charges System and Conditions of Payment, Document No. 90.60.04 dated January 1990, states must exempt the following categories of flights from charges: flights performed under visual flight rules; circular flights taking off and landing at the same airport; flights by aircraft of less than two tons; flights carried out for non-commercial purposes by aircraft which are the property of a state; search and rescue flights; flights carried out to check or test air navigation equipment and flights carried out to test the airworthiness of aircraft or equipment. They must be exempted from charge. In direct response to the Senator's last question, there is a standard international aviation mechanism whereby these charges are calculated and each country operates that system.

Mr. Ross

I thank the Minister for that information. Are those the only categories which will be exempt from charges?

Mr. N. Treacy

Those are the only categories which must be exempt.

Mr. Ross

But are they the only categories which will be exempt?

Mr. N. Treacy

The Authority would have a discretion to exempt other flights, for example, a flight performed entirely within the flight information regions controlled by the State. It has the discretion to exempt flights within the State in a particular way.

Mr. Ross

I take it that the discretion is with the Minister.

Mr. N. Treacy

The discretion is with the Minister but always on the advice of the Authority.

Mr. Ross

I thank the Minister but I am not reassured. I would like an assurance that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications does not have a blanket permission to waive flight charges. Although the Minister has been very helpful and has detailed the categories which must be exempted from charges under international rules, he has not given a reassurance that the Minister, with the permission of the Minister for Finance, may not exempt anybody he pleases. Is that correct?

Mr. N. Treacy

The Minister may give a direction to exempt certain categories of flights but he would have to base that on very solid reasons or take advice from the special unit in his own Department. He would also consult with the authority and take advice from them. The facility is there and there are many reasons for it.

Mr. Ross

That is not satisfactory but I understand it. Can the Minister anticipate the cost of this? It is to be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Is there any estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of waiving charges?

Mr. N. Treacy

The cost averages about £1 million per year. It will continue to be carried by the Exchequer, as it has always been.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 46 and 47 agreed to.

SECTION 48.

Question proposed: "That section 48 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

I take exception to three words in line 43 of page 34. These three words are "are not new". This refers to:

Persons employed by Eurocontrol in the State shall be entitled to exemption from customs duties and charges, other than those in respect of services rendered, in the case of the importation of their personal effects, movable property and other household effects which are not new and which they bring into the State on first taking up residence in the State...

I do not know why it was necessary to include these three words but I can visualise a situation in which they will inflict an unnecessary hardship. For example, a person coming in from Eurocontrol who is recently married and was not previously the owner of a residence may seek to establish a home within the State for the period of the residence of that new family. It is permissible to bring second hand goods with them but they cannot bring new goods. This is unnecessary, unreasonable and unfair.

Mr. N. Treacy

I am sure Senator Howard would accept that the world is becoming a more mobile place and people can move around much more easily. Where a person is asked to discharge their obligations under Eurocontrol and asked to move from one country to another, they may have to dispose of their private property and they will have personal effects they want to take with them. Their residential property may have to be disposed of, and that is a matter for the people who are moving.

However, they may have acquired personal effects which they wish to bring with them to their new place of residence. In order to give them the maximum opportunity to move, they are allowed to bring their personal effects. Obviously if they were bringing in new goods and were given this special facility, it could lend itself to abuse. This is provided for under the Eurocontrol convention and we are enshrining that condition here as part of our obligation under the Eurocontrol convention.

Mr. Ross

I assume that this section puts the provisions of the Eurocontrol convention into the legislation. Some of them are news to me. What is the tax status of Eurocontrol? Under the Bill it will be accorded the same relief from taxes as a foreign sovereign state. That is an extraordinary blanket status for Eurocontrol. I am at a loss why quite such blanket privileges are given to the staff of Eurocontrol in avoiding customs duties and charges in respect of a large number of items and in avoiding the inspection of their official papers.

It is extraordinary that the director of Eurocontrol is given super diplomatic immunity when in this country. I cannot see the reason for this. The Minister may correct me but I understand that he will only be prosecuted if he commits a road traffic offence. However, if he commits any other offence he is immune from prosecution. If that is true, what is its basis? The man is not, as I understand it, a diplomat in the normal sense of the word. He is director of a European interstate agency and I cannot see why he has this extraordinary blanket immunity.

Mr. N. Treacy

I can readily understand it. Looking at the situation in other parts of the world and at the functions of various international organisations like the United Nations, we find that when there is conflict it is difficult for their staff to impose certain international regulations and laws which are agreed by most of the nations in the world. If they cannot impose them they cannot succeed in achieving their effect. We must acknowledge that this international organisation has major international responsibilities which were agreed by the contracting States to the convention.

The person who holds this position is basically an aviation ambassador. As such he must have the facility to move through any territories governed by the convention so that he can satisfy himself, his staff and his organisation that international aviation rules are obeyed. It is important that nobody is permitted to impede the mobility or the rights of this person in seeking the information and, in some cases, the documentation that is so vital to public safety both nationally and internationally. That is very important.

Article 22 of the Eurocontrol Protocol states:

The staff of the organisation:

(a) shall be granted exemption from customs duties and charges, other than those in respect of services rendered, in the case of the importation of their personal effects, movable property and other household effects which are not new, which they bring from abroad on first taking up residence in the territory in question, and in the case of the reexportation of those same effects and movable property, when they relinquish their duties;

(b) may, on taking up their duties in the territory of any one of the contracting parties, import their personal motor car temporarily with exemption from duty, and subsequently, but not later than on termination of their period of service, re-export that vehicle with exemption from duty, subject, however, in either event, to any conditions deemed to be necessary in each individual case by the Government of the contracting party concerned;

Those facilities are to ensure that staff can move quickly, bring their personal effects and motor car and rapidly discharge their obligations and duties on behalf of Eurocontrol in any contracting State and have no excuses for not doing so.

We all know people, whether they be friends or citizens of this country, who have emigrated and returned. They usually bring their personal effects from the UK, Europe or the US with them. In a normal family where a person wishes to bring their personal effects, this facility is available to do so and it is a good idea.

Mr. Mooney

I wish to raise two points. One relates to subsection (4) (a) which relates to inspection and access to premises "by a member of the Garda Síochána or other person" and subsection (4) (b) "by any person investigating an accident or other incident". Legislation was passed in the last couple of years which gave additional powers to Customs and Excise for direct access when following alleged criminals or those who were in breach of the Customs and Excise laws. Why is there a specific reference to the Garda Síochána and not to Customs and Excise officers? In the absence of a specific reference to customs officers in this part of the Bill, would the term "any person "apply? If not, to whom does it apply?

In relation to "any person investigating an accident", the power to appoint people vests with the Minister. Are they, in effect, being given an elevated status? Usually the people who investigate accidents are technical experts rather than people with expertise in criminal law. Is the Minister giving legislative effect to extra powers for a member of the public who, in the pursuit of his or her brief under this Act to investigate accidents, will be able to invade people's privacy, in other words, gain access to private property which is a constitutional matter? I am sorry to sound so obtuse but I hope the Minister understands my question.

Eurocontrol, as Senator Ross said, is being given extraordinary powers because we are signatories to the Final Act. The Final Act was agreed and what the Minister quoted comes from a document that was agreed by Governments in 1981. The Single European Act was passed in 1987 and the Single Market came into existence on 1 January this year. Obviously, matters which affected member states in 1981 in relation to exemption from taxes and importation of goods would now be redundant in light of the Single European Act and the Single Market. Did the parliamentary draftsman, when he lifted the Eurocontrol Final Act as read by the Minister and placed it in section 48, take cognisance of the significantly changed position in relation to taxes and other duties in member states?

Eurocontrol which was set up by member states. Is Eurocontrol confined to the European Community — or European Union as it is now — or is it a Europe wide body which includes non-EC states? If the latter is true, there could be a conflict between the obligations and privileges of member states of the European Community and those who are not members. In that regard we are giving extensive legal powers to Eurocontrol. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions.

Mr. N. Treacy

First I will give a list of the member states of Eurocontrol as it has more members than the European Community. They are: Germany, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Malta, Cyprus, Hungary, Switzerland and Austria. Members will note that Spain is not a member of Eurocontrol. Consequently the European Community laws and regulations would not be appropriate because it is a broader base than that.

Article 26 of Eurocontrol states:

1. (a) The installations of the Organisation shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the Organisation shall be exempt from any measure of requisition, expropriation or confiscation.

(b) The archives or the Organisation and all official papers and documents belonging to it shall be inviolable, wherever located.

2. The property and assets of the Organisation may not be seized, nor may execution be levied upon them, except by a judicial decision. The installations of the Organisation shall not, however, be seized nor shall execution be levied upon them.

3. Nevertheless, in order to enable judicial inquiries to be carried out and to ensure the execution of judicial decisions in their respective territories, the competent authorities of the State in which the Organisation has its headquarters and of the other States in which installations and archives of the Organisation are located shall, after having informed the Director General of the Agency, have access to such installations and archives.

In response to what Senator Mooney spoke about, the Minister appoints the person to investigate aviation accidents under the Acts. Under section 48.3, the authority will appoint persons who investigate incidents under this Act. The section covers a situation which might arise if Eurocontrol were to operate air traffic control in the State. Persons investigating an air accident would need access to any air traffic control records in any location at any given time.

Section 48.4 (a) states:

...by a member of the Garda Síochána or any other person acting in the execution of a warrant or other legal process...

This would mean any person in the employment of the State. It could be a representative of the Department of Justice. Another section of the Bill, Members will remember, referred to similar situations pertaining to a member of the Garda Síochána, a member of the Army or member of the Customs and Excise or people nominated by the Minister. In investigating an accident or anything like that the Minister may have to appoint medical people who would not be in the employment of the State, or other people, to ensure that there was a totality of information available on the accident report. He must have the facility to appoint these people to assist in carrying out the investigation into the accident. This flexibility gives the Minister the right to do so.

Mr. Ross

Thank you. The more we hear about Eurocontrol the more we learn and the more alarmed we become. The Minister did not reply to a couple of my questions. Is the director general of Eurocontrol some sort of super safety supremo for the countries which the Minister has just listed? I wish to know the date of the legislation which he has just cited. Am I correct in saying that if this director general is guilty of, say, negligence, in a situation where he is dealing with safety, he is totally immune from prosecution in this country? He will have responsibility for all those countries involved.

My understanding from this legislation and from what the Minister read is that he is only liable for prosecution for traffic offences. This is extraordinary and I do not understand the rationale behind it. The Minister goes on to say that the director general is not liable for words spoken or written. I presume we are talking about libel and slander. I am alarmed to learn that he is immune from prosecution in everything except traffic offences. Does this include negligence in regard to safety? Would this include fraud or criminal offences? Are we talking about a blanket immunity? If so, we are why are we giving such immunity? It is extraordinary that someone should be raised to such a status.

Mr. N. Treacy

There is a difference between the organisation by which he is employed and the functions and rights which he has while he is the administrative head of that organisation in any of the member states. The President of the European Commission, M. Jacques Delors, would be in a similar situation in any of the member states of the European Community in that as head of an organisation, carrying out his duties, he has similar facilities. Obviously there are certain conditions attaching to the employment of the director general as a member of Eurocontrol which cover the points made by Senator Ross. Article 22, section 7 of Eurocontrol states:

7. In addition to the privileges, exemptions and facilities granted to the staff of the Organisation, the Director General of the Agency shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction in respect of acts, including words spoken and written, done by him in the exercise of his functions; this immunity shall not apply in the case of a motor traffic offence or in the case of damage caused by a motor vehicle belonging to or driven by him.

In other words, while discharging his functions he has this protection in the various States. He is an administrative head. He is not the air traffic controller of Europe. He is administering a system which is internationally binding on the member States who are signatories to Eurocontrol. This is normal. He has a very important role and it is important that his mobility, his accessibility to any particular document, place or person is not impeded at any time. That is the idea behind it.

Mr. Ross

But is he immune from prosecution for fraud or for negligence?

Mr. N. Treacy

It does not say that here.

Mr. Ross

Yes, but presumably he must be.

Mr. N. Treacy

He must be, but he is a mobile person. He is based in Brussels and obviously his employment there is very strict. It does not allow him to do anything unethical or illegal. We all have certain norms to which we must adhere in the discharge of our obligations. I am sure they are very strict for him, but this refers to his facilities while he is in the Eurocontrol area in a member state.

Mr. Ross

What is the date of that document?

Mr. Mooney

The document is dated 1981. I referred to that earlier.

Mr. N. Treacy

The date of the document is 12 February 1981.

Mr. Mooney

Can I take it that if the director general of the agency parks his car on a double yellow line at Dublin Airport, he will have to pay the parking fine?

Mr. N. Treacy

Yes, or have his car confiscated and pay the subsequent charge.

Mr. Mooney

That, Senator Ross will be pleased to hear, is somewhat different from those who enjoy full diplomatic immunity in that they are not liable for car parking fines. I am curious to know how many other international agencies to which this country is a signatory enjoy similar privileges and status apart from Eurocontrol. How many staff we are talking about, how many people will actually enjoy these privileges and this tax free status? I am not talking about the director general, but the staff of Eurocontrol.

It seems to me that because of our increasing legal obligations at international level, if the privileges and status extended to Eurocontrol in this Bill are similarly extended to other international agencies, then a substantial number of people in Europe and elsewhere will enjoy what might be referred to as life in the fast lane at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer. I am curious as to whether this is an aspect which is increasing. If so, perhaps we are all in the wrong jobs.

Mr. N. Treacy

There is only one director general. We have no staff of Eurocontrol in this country. In this section we are replicating the Eurocontrol convention which is already enshrined in Irish law. We have to include it here to protect our position in the international aviation system. The person who has this exemption is the director general. I presume that, in an emergency, he may delegate functions to a member of his staff but the facilities here are not conferred on other members of Eurocontrol in an open manner. The only person who has this facility is the director general.

Mr. Mooney

I am not referring to the exemption from criminal cases enjoyed by the director general of the agency but to the general exemptions of taxes and other privileges and exemptions applying to the staff of Eurocontrol.

Mr. N. Treacy

We do not have any Eurocontrol staff here as I said. If we had they would have to be given these benefits.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 49 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 60.

Question proposed: "That section 60 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

I want to return to the question of licensed and unlicensed aerodromes. We had a discussion on this on Second Stage and the clarification we got then did allay my fears. It would appear there are three licensed aerodromes, namely, Shannon, Dublin and Cork. What is the status of the regional airports? What is the status of flying clubs? What is the status of landing strips? I want to distinguish between landing strips and flying clubs — flying clubs have buildings and a landing strip but the landing strip is just that. What is the function of this Authority in relation to each of these categories?

Mr. N. Treacy

We have the State airports first which have to conform to international laws and standards and they are owned by the State. Second, we have the regional airports. They are in private ownership but we are obliged to license them when they satisfy the proper criteria. We must ensure that they meet those criteria before they are licensed and they are subject to constant inspections.

Mr. Howard

Are they unlicensed now?

Mr. N. Treacy

No, they are licensed. They cannot operate without a licence. Nobody may operate commercially without a proper aviation licence from this Authority acting on behalf of the State, and in conformity with all the international conventions to which we are signatories.

Third, there are the smaller airports. Where there are regular flights they also have to be licensed. Then there are the private aerodromes where a person owning a private plane, operating on their own property, would not be licensed. They would have their private plane and their own aerodrome. They need to have a licence to navigate into the airspace and their plane would have to conform to specific standards but where they would be landing would not be a licensed area.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 61.

Question proposed: "That section 61 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ross

This section deals with the costs and the payments for membership of various international aviation organisations. Perhaps the Minister of State could explain why these payments are made by the Minister to these organisations and he is then reimbursed by the company for those payments. What are they not paid directly by the company to these organisations? The answer may be that the State is a member of these organisations and not the company. If so, that is satisfactory.

Second, would the Minister of State tell me what the cost of membership of all those organisations and the European Civil Aviation Conference would be to the Exchequer? Third, perhaps the Minister of State would answer the question I have already asked. It appears that this Bill, and this section in particular, will cost the Exchequer and the establishment of this semi-State organisation will cost the Exchequer, and not just the semi-State body. How is that statement reconciled with the statement in the explanatory memorandum that it will not cost the Exchequer? It says: "The impact on the Exchequer of the establishment of the company as provided for in this Bill is expected to be neutral at worst..." Does that mean on balance or does it mean that in effect it is just the establishment that will be Exchequer neutral?

Mr. N. Treacy

In regard to all the international organisations to which we are signatories only states or countries are allowed to be members. An organisation or a body within that country cannot be given membership. The total monetary annual cost to this country is about £2 million and as the Irish Aviation Authority will be the regulatory body managing the aviation affairs of the county in a commercial manner in the years ahead, it would be mandatory on them to refund these costs to the Minister after he had discharged them on behalf of Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 62 and 63 agreed to.

SECTION 64.

Question proposed: "That section 64 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mooney

I would like clarification of my earlier question where the Minister of State stressed costs of investigation. Section 64 states that:

The Minister may by order provide for the payment by the owner or operator of an aircraft of all or part of the costs incurred by the Minister in the investigation of an accident of a specified kind, or other incident of a specified kind, involving the aircraft.

This would seem to be at odds with the Minister of State's commitment that he would not charge for the rescue operations in accidents. Perhaps he would clarify section 64.

Mr. Ross

Is this Bill Exchequer neutral on balance? The Minister of State did not answer that question. It would appear to me that there are costs on the Exchequer.

Mr. N. Treacy

On balance the Bill is Exchequer neutral.

Mr. Ross

Balancing the costs and the revenue.

Mr. N. Treacy

That is, balancing the costs and recouping the costs expended by the State from the Authority. The only permanent costs impinging on the Exchequer will be the retention of the special unit in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications advising the Minister on aviation matters and carrying out accident investigation. The Minister will still be responsible for carrying these costs through the national Exchequer.

Senator Mooney referred to the conflict as he perceives it between accident investigation and rescue. There is a marked difference. We have a national obligation, and we have an obligation under international law, to provide proper rescue services and to carry out those services, such as recovering people, personnel, equipment and so on, irrespective of cost.

The investigation of accidents is a different matter, and very costly in certain cases. An example is the Air India disaster off the south coast of Ireland some years ago. The investigation of that disaster continued for a long time and was very costly. The purpose of this section is basically to deal with such situations.

Mr. Mooney

Why does the Bill not make it obligatory on the Minister to seek payment rather than specifying that the Minister may by order provide for payment? Why is it so vague?

Mr. N. Treacy

It is our intention to have insurance cover to cater for this eventuality. That should cover the costs. If cover is not adequate, then there would be a facility for the Minister to recover the costs. This is the purpose of the section.

Question put and agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.