Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1993

Vol. 138 No. 7

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

Question proposed: "That section 65 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

I am glad to see the Minister of State back in the House. We were having a fruitful discussion on the Bill. I ask the following question for the purpose of expediting matters. Would the Minister, as a matter of courtesy, give me his conclusions on the review of section 41? I withdrew an amendment to the section last week on the understanding that the Minister would examine it between Committee and Report Stages. The Minister would like to take Report Stage this afternoon and I need to know if he is responding in a positive manner to the points I raised. However, the Minister can indicate to me as the discussion proceeds.

Section 65 deals with the powers of the company in relation to accidents and other incidents affecting aircraft. The section empowers staff of the company or officers appointed by the company to do a number of things. They can detain an aircraft, gain access to the aircraft and its equipment, examine and test aircraft and so on. The company may authorise a member of the staff to obtain from any other person — it is this third person about whom I am concerned — information within his knowledge or procurement. It may authorise such a member to have access to such records as he may reasonably require and to enter any place where such entry is reasonably required for the purposes of his functions. I have no problem with that but what happens where this authorised officer meets with resistance?

He may be dealing with someone who has information and refuses to disclose it or someone who has records but refuses to show them. Where is the enforcement measure in the legislation to enable an officer of the company to obtain the information required?

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

I appreciate what Senator Howard has said. This Bill is structured in a way which shows the importance that the Government, the State, the parliamentary representatives and the people of Ireland attach to the aviation industry. This high responsibility and structuring is such that it puts major impositions on the performance and co-operation of staff. Consequently section 74 is a clearly defined section dealing with offences.

The section is strenuous and strict. It is fairly extreme and harsh on the staff, directors and everybody involved in the company. We do not think any other Bill in the history of the State has included such strong measures. This is how we propose to deal with any infringements or the lack of co-operation to which Senator Howard refers. I will be happy to deal with section 74 when we come to it.

Mr. Howard

This is an instance where the absence of adequate research facilities for Members can give rise to difficulties. I am glancing at section 74 and I suppose I will have to wait but from what I can see, it does not refer to section 65.

Mr. N. Treacy

I hope I am in order, a Chathaoirligh, and please call me to order if I am not. Section 74(5) reads:

A person who obstructs or impedes an authorised officer, an authorised officer of the company, a member of the staff of the company or an officer of Eurocontrol in the performance of any function conferred on him by or under this Act or fails to furnish to such a member information to which he is entitled under an order under section 65 shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 66.

Question proposed "That section 66 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

I seek clarification of this section because it deals with the powers of the Minister to require the cancellation or refusal of registration of an aircraft.

(1) If it appears to the Minister that an aircraft does not comply with the standards specified in a direction under section 13 of the Act of 1988, he may give a direction in writing to the company requiring it to cancel the registration of the aircraft under this Act...

I understood that it will be the responsibility and duty of the Irish Aviation Authority to carry out inspections and that it will be required to satisfy itself as to the airworthiness and safety of aircraft. If that is so, why must the Authority refer back to the Minister in relation to the cancellation of the registration of the aircraft? If the aviation authority is the responsible body in this area and if it is doing its job, why is it necessary to refer to the Minister for authorisation to ensure the cancellation of registration?

Mr. N. Treacy

Section 66 replaces section 15 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1988, which is repealed by this Bill. That provision enabled the Minister to refuse to register or cancel the registration of an aircraft if it appeared to the Minister that the aircraft did not comply with the security requirements specified by him in the direction under section 13 of that Act. Under this Bill, the new company will become the agency responsible for the registration of aircraft while the Minister retains responsibility for security.

This section provides that the Minister may direct the company to refuse or cancel the registration of an aircraft which fails to meet the required standards in relation to security. Section 13 of the 1988 Act enabled the Minister to give to the operator of any aircraft directions as to the standards of security with which he must comply. It is the duty of every such operator to comply with such directions as laid down in law and directed by the Minister.

Mr. Howard

I have difficulty with this because the Minister, in the Second Stage debate, emphasised that this new independent body, the Irish Aviation Authority, would be free from certain shackles and would be able to do an independent job.

My argument is that if this body or its officers inspect an aircraft and they are not satisfied as to the airworthiness of that aircraft it would appear that before the Authority can act on its conclusions it must refer to the Minister. The implication is that the Minister has an option to cancel the registration or refuse to cancel it. If the Minister has such an option — it is only implied that he has such an option — he obviously must have advice. As we have removed this advice from the Civil Service to the Irish Aviation Authority, the Minister is automatically obliged to do the bidding of the Authority and if that is so, I do not see why that power should not be given to the Authority.

The Minister may tell me it is a safeguard to ensure that a second look must be taken at it. This is a critical and technical area and, if the Minister proposes to have a second look at it, from whom does he seek advice to balance against the expert advice of the Authority?

Mr. Magner

I have a certain amount of sympathy with Senator Howard, if I understand him correctly. This relates back to the powers of the board, where the board could not make a recommendation involving the safety of an aircraft without referring back to the Minister. I, too, am puzzled why they must consult the Minister to see if they can refuse to register an aircraft. Is this simply about safety? Will it always be about safety?

Mr. N. Treacy

I hope we do not get confused about this. I wish to make it quite clear that the Authority has the power to register or deregister an aircraft. The Authority has total control over airworthiness, licensing and so forth. We are talking here about the right of the Minister in regard to security matters. I will take a simple analogy: an old motor car can be registered; it becomes unroadworthy and is taken off the road but it is still registered with the local authority. However the authority can choose to deregister it. It can notify the registered owner that certain things must be provided and the local authority can take it off the register or leave it on the register. The Aviation Authority is in the same position. In matters of security, intelligence advice and that type of thing, the Minister can give a directive and it must be carried out. That is what we are talking about.

There may be times, if we stretch this to the limits of our imagination, where an aviation company operating somewhere else comes into our airspace to provide particular services, but because it is doing something illegal elsewhere and the international intelligence services are advising us of the situation, the Minister, in co-operation with the Ministers for Justice and Defence, may have to give certain directions to the Authority not to cooperate or not to provide services for this company. That is an extreme example. This power seeks to take into account the information available to the Minister on security matters. The rest, on the technical professional and registration side, is a matter for the company.

Mr. Howard

The Minister has now taken this into a new area which is by no means apparent from reading the section. The Minister is effectively saying that——

Mr. N. Treacy

I am expounding to give the Senator the maximum information.

Mr. Howard

I am very grateful to the Minister. There has been first class co-operation between all sides in this debate and, hopefully, it will continue for another hour or two. I co-operated to the extent that, against my better judgment, I withdrew amendments. In regard to the Minister's point, I am concerned about the interpretation I took from his remarks, that is, that this power is almost entirely related to the security area. If that is the case, why does the section not refer to security matters?

Mr. N. Treacy

Law is a very complex area and that is why we have specialist people called lawyers to deal with it. We, as legislators, try to create the law and perhaps we are to blame somewhat when we make it so complex, but the section under discussion refers to section 13 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1988. I re-emphasise that the Authority can refuse to register an aircraft if it is not airworthy or otherwise fails to meet the Authority's requirements. By the Authority's requirements we mean the requirements under Irish and international law and conventions and under the various treaties and conventions to which we are party, such as Eurocontrol, ICAO and so forth. However, the Minister will be responsible for aviation security, that is the protection of civil aircraft against hijacking and so on. Section 13 of the 1988 Act reads:

(1) The Minister may, whenever he is satisfied that the interests of the State or of the public so require, give to the operator of any aircraft (other than a State aircraft) directions as to the standards of security and safety which must be complied with—

(a) wherever the aircraft may be, if the aircraft is registered in the State, or

(b) whenever the aircraft is in, or is in flight into, or out of, or over, the State, if the aircraft is not so registered,

and it shall be the duty of every such operator to comply with such directions.

(2) A direction pursuant to subsection (1) may relate to a particular aircraft or to aircraft of a particular class or description.

What we are doing here is transferring and dividing responsibility, giving certain responsibilities to the company for registration, airworthiness, technical management, professional standards, international law, national law, etc., and we are separating from that and incorporating with it section 13 of the 1988 Act involving the Minister in security matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 67 agreed to.

SECTION 68.

Question proposed: "That section 68 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

We are into security and military matters and the designation of areas of Irish airspace for use by the Defence Forces as of now but I do not know if the Minister of State is free to tell us where and what they are. Are the areas dealt with in this section permanent or are they subject to movement in size, area or direction from time to time? Second, in time of war or international conflict, bearing in mind the vast areas of the north Atlantic that would appear to come under the control of this Authority, has the Minister if he so decides under the provisions of this Bill the authority to designate that entire area?

Mr. Mooney

My question on this section relates to the area of airspace being designated for use not only within Irish airspace but in the area controlled by Eurocontrol of which this country is a member. What powers will be transferred to the new Irish Aviation Authority to represent this country at Eurocontrol level? It is my understanding, and perhaps the Minister of State could clarify this, that as a result of the enormous amount of airspace that is at present assigned for military and defence use within Europe, commercial aviation has to accommodate this to the extent that the consumer is suffering. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line but most commercial aviation traffic in Europe does not follow straight line paths primarily due to the significant amount of airspace that is currently designated for military and defence purposes. Could the Minister of State confirm that this is the case and, if so, that there is an anti-consumer bias in the existing situation? What steps, if any, would he advise the new Authority to take in the interests of the consumer to ensure that the amount of airspace designated for military and defence matters in Europe would be reduced over a period rather than expanded?

Mr. N. Treacy

If I was to answer globally, the answer to both questions would be yes. This section provides that certain areas of Irish airspace would be set aside for the use of the Defence Forces. Civilian aircraft may not enter those areas without permission. The Minister for Defence will be responsible for air navigation services in those areas but may reach an agreement with the company to have those services provided by the company or jointly by the military and the company. Orders under this section can be made and revoked or amended from time to time. Only areas of sovereign airspace could be so designated. We could not exclude foreign civil aircraft from the airspace over the north Atlantic. Designated areas would have to be over the land of this State and its territorial waters.

With regard to the designation of airspace, there would be some airspace in this country permanently designated as military airspace. That would be in most cases the lower airspace around Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, around Gormanston College, Gormanston defence area in County Meath, around the Glen of Imall, where military exercises and training are carried out, and in one particular area in the midlands. In most cases that was always in the lower airspace. The Minister for Defence would have the power to make an order designating upper airspace at particular times as being applicable for military aircraft at a particular time. However, in all cases there must be responsibility exercised and co-operation and collaboration between the civil authority and the military authority and consequent notice given to both parties and agreement reached so that everybody would know exactly what the situation is in the airspace at any given time. The areas under consideration are small and usually in the lower airspace.

Senator Mooney raised the question of military airspace on the continent. There are large military airspace areas reserved in Europe which are not in the interests of the best use of our aviation routes and, indeed, the best commercial use of those routes. Those involved in the European organisations, including ourselves, are constantly pressing for a reduction of military airspace areas so that we can maximise the options in the use of the airspace and minimise the costs. There is a constant effort throughout Europe on this issue. Obviously, as I have mentioned during the debate on the Bill in both Houses, the charge system always takes into account the routes being used. We are being very reasonable in this respect and consequently it is attractive to use Irish airspace. That would be part of the guiding principle the new company would use to attract as much air traffic through our airspace as possible.

Mr. Mooney

I am grateful for the Minister's reply and I am especially grateful that he has clarified the position in relation to the amount of space that has been designated within the State, and within the jurisdiction of the State, for military overflying. Obviously this has and will have a commercial impact. I am sure the House does not need to be reminded that the main reason for such high air fares in Europe is due to the air miles travelled. This matter has been at the forefront of discussions among the aviation authorities over a number of years. My question, in essence, is: will this Government, as a matter of policy and in light of the end of the cold war and the reduced obligation for countries in Europe to have as much airspace as they previously took to themselves because of national and European security reasons, actively and aggressively pursue with their European partners a reduction in military airspace within Eurocontrol's area? If they do not, we will continue to experience high air fares on commercial traffic between this country and Europe.

My main reason in raising point this is that as a peripheral country we need to continually reduce our access charges into and out of this country. If airspace continues to be designated to the extent that it has been heretofore and there is no significant reduction in it, that means that air miles will be more expensive, the cost of aviation will continue to be high and this country will suffer. It is mainly a twin pronged attack and it is based as much on the continuing economic prosperity of this country as it is on any defence or national security matters that may arise under this section.

Mr. Burke

Section 68(1), (2) and (3) proposes to give considerable powers to the Minister for Defence, but subsection (2) states:

Aircraft other than aircraft of the Defence Forces shall not enter a designated area without the permission of the person operating air navigation services in the area.

May I ask the Minister to clarify the position in relation to the rescue services, whether they be the Irish rescue service or the British rescue service which has operated within our jurisdiction on several occasions? I presume the rescue services will be allowed to travel wherever they wish to carry our their functions.

Mr. N. Treacy

In response to Senator Mooney, Ireland's position would be traditional in that as a non-aggressive nation over the years we would maintain that situation. We would maintain international respect and to achieve the best use of all resources in the interests of providing the best opportunities for human resources. We will continue within the EC to press as positively and as strongly as we can to ensure that the amount of military airspace is reduced as speedily as possible so that the best commercial options are available for all air traffic so that we can maximise the options available to Ireland as an island State.

In response to Senator Burke's position on rescue services, the normal convention on rescue services is that they be allowed to travel through all airspace at all times given the normal professional standards of communication.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 69.

Question proposed: "That section 69 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

May I raise a question on this section which goes back to rates, local authorities and so on? I understand that property being used for air navigation purposes at present are free of rates but once a new Authority is set up such property will become liable for rates. Is that correct?

Mr. N. Treacy

Senator Howard is correct; being an astute local authority member and Member of the Oireachtas, the Senator has read the situation correctly.

Mr. Burke

Whichever building is used, will this new company carry out a revaluation of its premises? In the private sector when new companies take over or are set up a revaluation of the premises is often carried out.

Mr. N. Treacy

The position is that there will be no revaluation because all properties belonging to the State and the Minister would be exempt from rates at present. Now that we are moving those properties into a commercial environment, they will have to be valued for the first time.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 70.

Mr. Howard

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 47, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Nothing in this Act or any order or other instrument made thereunder, shall prejudice or affect the rights, powers or privileges of the Irish Meteorological Service."

Is my amendment acceptable?

Mr. N. Treacy

I await the Senator's contribution.

Mr. Howard

This amendment has been put down in response to representations from people who work in the Irish Meteorological Service. They are concerned the effect of section 70 will be to transfer gradually work they currently discharge to the Irish Aviation Authority. This has already begun with the provision of certain pieces of equipment at Shannon, Cork and Dublin Airports to be operated by the present air traffic control staff.

People working in the Meteorological Service are of the view that the work now being done by those instruments is more correctly in their field and should be done by them alone. The fact that the equipment has been supplied and that the work is being done by air traffic control staff is to them the thin end of the wedge. They feel more and more of their work will be done by the staff of the new Authority. It is to safeguard their position and to alleviate their fears that I put down this amendment. It is not controversial and what it seeks to achieve is clear.

Mr. N. Treacy

I will re-emphasise the position and put to rest any doubts about the opportunities or the facilities for delivery of service afforded to the Meteorological Service. As I indicated to this House on Second Stage, in the Select Committee and on Second Stage in the Dáil, the new Authority will not be taking responsibility for aviation meteorology. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications is responsible for implementing Annexe 3 of the Chicago Convention which deals with the meteorological services and he will continue to be the person responsible. Consequently the Bill does not change the position of the Minister in this regard and does not change the position of the Irish Meteorological Service, which is a part of our Department. Therefore there is no need for this amendment. Leaving it out of the Bill leaves the exercise of the totality of Annexe 3 of the Chicago Convention with the Minister and thereby gives permanent opportunity to the Irish Meteorological Service to continue providing the same services to the Irish Aviation Authority in the future, albeit in a modern way.

Mr. Howard

However matters are not as they were.

Mr. N. Treacy

And never will be.

Mr. Howard

Perhaps, but this is where reassurance becomes necessary. Equipment has been provided at three of our airports. Work that was previously done by employees of the Irish Meteorological Service is now being done by air traffic control staff. It is pointless to say this will never happen because it has happened. The first step has been taken and the second step is sure to follow. It was to protect the position of people in the Meteorological Service that I put down the amendment. The Minister cannot deny facts.

Mr. N. Treacy

There is some confusion which is perhaps my fault, despite my best efforts to clarify the position of the Meteorological Service and the meteorological equipment ordered in November 1992, purchased and delivered earlier this year. I am fully aware that staff in the Irish Meteorological Service have been concerned vis-à-vis the aviation authority because ANSO acquired barometers. Since barometers are meteorological equipment it was assumed ANSO were undertaking work appropriate to the Meteorological Service. This is not the case.

Every aircraft must have an altimeter which tells the pilot the height at which he is flying; it is a vital piece of safety equipment. Altimeters are set at barometric pressure which varies constantly with the weather. It is the responsibility of the Meteorological Service to inform air traffic control of the barometric pressure. They in turn pass it on to the pilots.

In April last year the Meteorological Service had industrial relations problems during which the supply of barometric pressures to air traffic control was withdrawn without notice, ex parte. Failure to supply barometric pressure to aircraft in flight was and is a highly dangerous and irresponsible action. Stopgap measures were implemented last April during the industrial dispute. However, because of continuing threats of industrial action, ANSO management bought barometers in November and December 1992 as a caution if the Meteorological Service cannot or refuse to supply these essential barometric readings.

The acquisition of barometers does not mean ANSO or the new Irish Aviation Authority intends to set up alternative meteorological arrangements. However, it does mean we will not be as exposed as we were to this type of irresponsible activity.

Under Article 28 of the Chicago Convention each contracting State undertakes to provide meteorological services to facilitate international air navigation. Annexe 3 of the convention requires each contracting state to designate the meteorological authority which will provide or arrange for the provision of the meteorological service for international air navigation. In Ireland that authority is and will continue to be the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and his servants in the Irish Meteorological Service.

The meteorological services of all the contracting states combine to form a global network. The Annexe sets out the international standards the contracting states have agreed to apply and the manner in which this worldwide system is to be co-ordinated. The Minister is responsible for providing the service to the required international standard. The Irish Aviation Authority will have the function of transmitting meteorological service information to aircraft as part of its air traffic control responsibilities; however, it will not be responsible for the provision of the service. That responsibility will remain with the Minister who will continue to provide the service both nationally and internationally through the Irish Meteorological Service. I hope this puts the matter in context.

Mr. Howard

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. It has emerged during this debate that we are dealing with a Minister who is on top of his brief. That makes the debate more interesting and productive. His contribution introduced factors with which I was not fully conversant. In view of that I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. N. Treacy

I am grateful to Senator Howard for his positive attitude.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 70 agreed to.

SECTION 71.

Question proposed: "That section 71 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Howard

I am opposing this section for valid reasons. I do not intend to speak at length and anything I say will be repeating arguments made effectively from both sides of the House.

The effect of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 to 1991, was to establish certain practices and principles that have shown their value and effectiveness over time.

As I recall the debate in earlier times, there was the concept that giving workers representation on the board of State companies, created an atmosphere in which there was a sense of participation from the ground floor up; it also created a sense of being a part of the enterprise and therefore, more conscious of contributing to its ultimate success. In practice, there are many examples which have shown the accuracy of these predictions.

Worker participation at board level, through directors representing them in various State enterprises, is a long standing principle and practice in State companies and because of that, there is no way I could allow this section to pass. By doing so, I would be acting contrary not alone to my own convictions, but to the views expressed with an amazing sense of unanimity by all sides of the House over the years on this issue.

What is sought here is a reversal of what we stood for on this matter. It is a turning back from what was once regarded as enlightened and progressive practice. We are not dealing now with what may happen — we moved on from that stage 17 or 18 years ago — we are in a different era now. We have practice and experience behind us which tell us that it would be a retrograde step to persist with section 71.

Mr. Ross

I am puzzled by this section and maybe the Minister could elaborate on it. On Second Stage, the Minister eloquently talked about the conflict of interest between the operational and regulatory areas. For some reason, he said that allowing or authorising worker participation on the board will involve that worker in a conflict of interests. That may be true but I would like the Minister to expand on that before we go any further.

The Minister went on to say — which seems to be contradictory — that: "We have removed from the Bill a prohibition on a ministerial appointment of a staff member to the board." I do not understand that. On the one hand, we have a section in the Bill which excludes the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977-91, and on the other, the Minister has the power to appoint a member of staff to the board. That conflict of interest will exist if the Minister appoints a member of staff to the board. These two sections in the Minister's speech and his statement that he will appoint a member of staff are in direct conflict with the section and I would like the Minister to explain that to me.

If, as the Minister says, there is a conflict of interest in this case, are there not similar conflicts of interest on all State boards, or on all boards? There is worker participation on the board of Aer Lingus and it has what the Minister calls an operational and a regulatory function. Is the worker or staff on the board of Aer Lingus caught in this bind? Does this mean that the Minister is setting a precedent where he does not believe that worker participation on the boards of State-sponsored bodies will be possible in future because there will always be a conflict of interest?

The Minister said there is a safety element here, but there is a safety element in every business. There are safety elements in Aer Lingus — they have rules there — Telecom Éireann, Bord na Móna and other semi-State bodies. There is certainly a greater safety element in this body, but if there is a conflict of interest here, there are similar conflicts in all other State bodies — possibly in every company — and I cannot understand the contradictions in the Minister's statement with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Burke

I would like the Minister to outline the reasons he is opposed to having worker representation on the board of this new Authority. I am disappointed with the attitude of the Labour Party — the junior members in Government — on this matter. Surely they are going against every principle they have stood for over the years. I call on the Minister to accept the amendment which will be put forward by Senator Taylor-Quinn and myself on Report Stage, to save him from any embarrassment that may arise from Senator Howard's proposal. I fully support Senator Howard's statements and I can see why Senator Magner has left the Chamber. He had an answer for us on every section.

Mr. Mooney

It is not the practice of this House to refer to absent Members.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

I ask the Senators not to refer to absent Members.

Mr. N. Treacy

Senator Magner is a good partner.

Mr. Burke

I accept what Senator Mooney said. I am disappointed. This evening the Minister will embarrass his junior partners in Government because they will have to vote with the Government and against every principle for which the Labour Party have stood. Only a few minutes ago, the Minister complimented Senator Howard for his constructive approach to the Bill when he withdrew his amendment to section 70. I ask the Minister to save his junior partners embarrassment and agree with the constructive approach suggested by Senator Howard.

According to a trade union publication IMPACT, one of the biggest unions in the country, is actively pursuing worker participation on the board. The Minister knows this well because he has had representations from them. I ask him to accept Senator Howard's proposals and to save the Labour Party from any further embarrassment.

Mr. Neville

I too oppose this section. As a nominee of the Labour Panel in the Seanad, I am disappointed that the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act does not apply. This progressive legislation was introduced in 1977 by the then leader of the Labour Party and Minister for Labour. It indicated a change which was expected from the industrial relations area and suggested that workers should have participation and that their knowledge, concern and involvement in the industry should be recognised by their involvement at board level. A company or organisation was seen not only as a social institution owned by the shareholders but as an institution where workers, customers, suppliers and the public had an interest in its survival.

Workers are a key to a company's survival and success and I am sure the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, recognised that. Commentators and everyone who spoke on the Bill at the time said it was progressive legislation. They recognised that the workers could play a key positive role in the management and directorship of companies. Unfortunately, however, this Bill implies that workers would have a negative impact on a company and, for that reason, should not be involved. I do not accept this. Workers have a right to a say in a company's policies. This would be a positive approach. If the Minister did not think the inclusion of workers on a board would have a negative impact on a company, he would have included them.

The old approach was that management had a prerogative as to what happened in a company because it received a mandate from the shareholders. However, the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, and industrial relations Acts throughout Europe have recognised that workers also have a role to play and a right to a say in the management and policies of organisations.

It is important that workers' knowledge, experience, commitment and expertise, gained from working in an organisation, should be represented on the board of directors of private and public companies. We should support this principle and, as a member of the Labour Party in the Seanad, I support it; I apologise, I should have said the Labour Panel.

Mr. N. Treacy

I thought the Senator had changed and I was delighted.

Mr. Neville

The Minister of State knows what I meant because I mentioned it earlier.

Mr. Ross

I am sure the Senator would be welcome.

Acting Chairman

The Senator is getting confused.

Mr. Neville

I represent the Labour Panel, as you do, and I am sure you agree with my views.

Acting Chairman

Tuigim.

Mr. Neville

The workers in any organisation should have a role to play and their involvement would be positive. Provision was made for this in 1977. However, since then workers' participation in companies has decreased. Perhaps this is related to economic circumstances, but it is unfortunate because workers' participation could have a positive effect. If people are given responsibility, they will act accordingly. We should not be shy about giving workers responsibility for the management and direction of companies. This amendment is trying to ensure that this principle is adhered to.

If the State does not legislate for this, how can we expect private industry to recognise it as a principle in its own right? In 1977 the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Michael O'Leary, gave that leadership and this is an opportunity to continue to do so. It is important to uphold the rights of workers. The House should support the objection to this section and perhaps the Minister would reconsider his views in the light of what has been said.

Mr. N. Treacy

I listened with interest to the points made. Senator Neville has struck a broad political chord. The contributions from Senator Neville, Senator Burke, Senator Ross and Senator Howard have been positive and meritorious and I can concur with a lot of what they said. Now that Senator Gallagher is here, she and I can ensure Senator Magner and his colleagues in the Labour Party are aware of the impact — no pun intended — the Senators on the other side of the House want to make and, second, the regard they have for the Labour Party, that they would not embarrass them in any way.

This situation is not like the one covered in the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, which makes it mandatory that at least one-third of the board of directors should be elected by the workers in the setting up of a new semi-State company. This Bill is drafted in a different way for special reasons. The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, is not being applied to this company because the company will be responsible for licensing most of its own staff, including air traffic controllers, pilots, aeronautical engineers and others.

Worker directors would often find themselves facing an obvious conflict of interests if they were obliged to take part in board decisions which would involve their own or their colleagues' licences. Moreover, international aviation law and, indeed, normal prudence dictates that board decisions are taken in the interests of aviation safety. There has been a lot of adverse comment about this provision, but I do not propose to change it.

The staff in the Air Navigation Services Office and the offices throughout the country are aware of the situation and they are positive about it. I am happy to say that we are involved in positive discussions with the staff bodies at this time about the transfer into a new commercial body. There is a positive environment at these discussions because everyone understands the reasons for this decision. I believe it is in the best interests of aviation safety and we must give a clear signal that this is our priority.

Mr. Ross

Would the Minister allow worker participation on the board and exclude them from participating if they are giving licences to their colleagues?

Mr. Howard

I am disappointed with the Minister's response. These provisions already exist when it comes to State boards and they have been referred to from time to time. There is a well established practice of a declaration of interest by the relevant board of directors where there is a conflict of interest; there is also non-participation in decision-making in regard to specific matters. That is standard practice and would take care of this situation. There are penalties if the provisions for a declaration of interests or participation in decision-making are avoided. That takes care of the central and only argument the Minister put forward.

Mr. Burke

I am also disappointed with the Minister's explanation because he mentioned a conflict of interests. We were given a similar explanation by a member of the Committee of Public Accounts in relation to membership of the board. On that occasion, the Minister gave other reasons workers should not be on the board. There would be no conflict of interests. Senator Howard is correct and I accept what he and Senator Ross said about the declaration of interests. The Minister should accept this point. We know it will be the Minister's sole prerogative to elect the board members but he should accept Senator Ross' point.

Ms Gallagher

In relation to Senator Ross' point about how we could split rights, it is simply not practical. One is either a member of a board or not. I am happy with the Minister's explanation as to why that is excluded in the legislation. It makes sense. There is nothing to prevent worker participation at a later stage.

I am delighted to hear Senator Neville's praise of the Labour Party and the argument for worker participation in all aspects. He should be on this side of the House.

Mr. Burke

The Senator should back them. Vote with us.

Ms Gallagher

It is marvellous to hear that what we have always said makes Senator Neville's point. This legislation does not allow for worker participation but there is no cast or slur on workers in that regard. It has been properly explained by the Minister and I accept it.

Mr. Neville

I remind Senator Gallagher that I was elected on the Labour Panel. Perhaps she was not here when I said——

Ms Gallagher

The Labour Party.

Mr. Neville

——that we are representing the Labour Panel. I also remind Senator Gallagher that the Leader of the Labour Party who brought in that Bill later saw the light and joined Fine Gael.

First, the worker directors would not have a majority on the board. They would make up a third of the board and would not be the deciding factor. Second, and contrary to Senator Gallagher's view, it is regular practice for members of a board who have a vested interest not to participate. Most boards elect people with vested interests. I am member of Foynes Harbour Trustees and two of our members are members of the harbour operators, the employers. If we have to make a decision in that area, they sit back and allow us to make it because they have a vested interest. This is not unusual; it is common practice. I would be very disappointed if somebody said the two people representing the operators in the port were not allowed to sit on the board because they had a vested interest. Those people contribute very well to the activities of the board but they have a vested interest in many of the decisions taken and they stand back from them.

We should not under-estimate workers. At present some of them have vested interests in existing State boards and in many of the decisions made. By virtue of the fact that they represent labour, workers have a vested interest in any board and those now on State boards are very responsible when it comes to making decisions. I have confidence that if they were on this board they could stand back when a conflict of interests was involved but even if they did not, I believe they would accept responsibility for their actions. Even if a third of the board decided to go a certain direction, they could be overruled by the majority.

We should maintain the principle of worker participation on all State boards. We should encourage it in all areas of enterprise, private, semi-State and State. The Government is indicating that it does not accept that worker participation should apply in all circumstances and this is a retrograde step. How can we persuade industry and commerce to accept worker participation if the Government does not? It is allowing excuses elsewhere when we as the Legislature, as citizens or trade unionists, should be encouraging employers to accept the benefits of worker participation.

Mr. Howard

I am more concerned now than when I spoke earlier. The Minister's sole argument is the conflict of interests. I outlined that there are well established mechanisms, in State boards and in the private sector, to deal with a conflict of interests. The members declare it and the director concerned does not participate in the decision making process in that regard. Senator Gallagher had difficulty with that interpretation but that is the position. That safeguard is there but the Minister said there can be conflict of interests and the risk cannot be taken. I put it to the Minister that there is no State board which can offer a 100 per cent guarantee that a conflict of interests will not arise sometime. At some point it is inevitable that in the performance of its duties there will be an area in which the personal interest of a board member will be to some degree in conflict. That position is protected by the declaration of interest and withdrawal from the decision making process.

Since 1977, when the first of these Acts saw the light of day, there has been steady, successful progress regarding worker directors on every State board. This is the first occasion I can recall that we have hit the block on the road. The justification given is unsustainable. I fear that if we incorporate section 71, the precedent will be created to deny worker participation in future State enterprises.

For the past 16 years there has been steady progress and now we have hit the block. If the justification is the explanation the Minister gave us, clearly that signals a wider decision. Having created the precedent, any Minister so inclined can say that because there is the risk of a conflict of interests, the effect of the worker participation Acts cannot apply in a particular case. This is a fundamental issue and we have reached the crossroads. As I said, I am more concerned now than I was when I initially opposed the section.

Acting Chairman

Senator O'Toole. I know the Senator has just arrived but we have spent half an hour on this section.

Mr. O'Toole

I am afraid that I have a lot to say on this section and I have discussed this at some length on previous occasions in this House with previous Ministers, once when the then Minister for Labour, Deputy B. Ahern, brought in legislation to increase the participation at board level and when he brought in another Bill, to increase participation at sub-board level. I recommend that the Minister look at the commitments given by the Government during that period.

The commitment given by the Government and the indications in the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress for worker participation and the move on management and union sides to get workers to have an appreciation of the importance of their product and company, are being set aside in this Bill.

I want to know why the 1991 legislation which contains a regulation allowing the Minister of the day to extend the Act to other companies as designated by the Minister cannot be applied to this company. The elimination of this section would not diminish the Minister's responsibility. This section is exclusive, it excludes and alienates workers from the operation of the board of the company. It is true that workers have a vested interest, but it is unacceptable to say it is negative to the development of the company. Workers have no vested interest other than ensuring the company works efficiently and effectively.

It has been suggested that workers are less responsible than those who have been promoted to management. Many of us in management have been workers and we have not changed. Workers do not become irresponsible when appointed to a board. I ask the Minister to trust the worker' judgment in electing responsible people to the board and to trust those elected. I also ask him to reflect on the Government's approach which is an open one and to allow participation at all levels.

Lack of information and participation creates tension in industrial relations. Those of us working in this area have encountered small and major disputes relating to organisation, rationalisation, cutbacks and development. If people do not know what is going on and are not part of the consultative or decision-making process, they will suspect something is going on which is not above board and they will not be able to go along with it.

This section is unacceptable and unnecessary because the point is covered in the 1991 Act. One of the Schedules to that Act states that the Minister may, by regulation, increase the number of companies included in worker participation at board and sub-board level. I ask the Minister to reconsider this and to give a vote of confidence to workers at a time when they badly need it.

Mr. N. Treacy

I listened with interest to the contributions. I believe in a practical approach to the question of worker directors. Worker directors can and do make a notable contribution in many commercial semi-State bodies. However, it would be wrong for a number of reasons to apply the full provisions of the worker participation Acts in this case. The right of workers to participate is not in question here.

On earlier sections of this Bill the potential for conflict between the company's operational and regulatory roles was raised. Those separate roles I believe could be seriously complicated by the presence of elected worker directors on the board. Inevitably such elections would involve people who, in addition to being employees of the company in its operational role, would also be licensed by the company's regulatory function.

I must re-emphasise that I have the utmost faith in the integrity of ANSO personnel and I have no reason to doubt but that worker directors would be equally upright and trustworthy. However, the probity of staff, management or board members is not the issue. As I said in the debate in this House and the Lower House, the primary role of this company is safety. That role is discharged at operational, regulatory and board levels. While we all hope and pray that accidents will not happen, the fact is they do. In the event of an accident involving the company and loss of life, the propriety of having operational employees who are also licensed by the company involved at the highest level would inevitably and justifiably give cause for concern and criticism. Where decisions must be made about safety matters, whether at board level regarding regulatory or operational functions, there should and must be clear lines of responsibility and accountability. In my view the election of worker directors in this case would inexorably fudge this clarity.

As I said at the outset, I took a practical approach to these matters. Under the terms of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, there is provision for sub-board level participation. I am anxious that the Irish Aviation Authority should have arrangements which will meet the requirements contained in the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts.

Since the Bill was introduced, we amended section 17 so that there is no barrier to the Minister appointing a staff member to the board. The Bill was published and was put through Second and Committee Stages in the Dáil and I listened to contributions from all sides. I amended section 17 in everyone's interests. I believe this approach fairly addresses the concerns expressed in this House and, at the same, will ensure the probity of the company in safety matters is never in doubt. It would be wrong for this House to tie the hand of any Minister on this matter. Ministers must have discretion in appointments to boards and the approach I have adopted should be to the satisfaction of the House.

Senator Howard said that for 16 years we put through legislation based on the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977. That is not a fact. We put through similar legislation and we made changes which were accepted. Those changes now operate in other semi-State organisations and they have been successful. The Minister has the right to appoint a staff member to a board and that practice has worked well. The same will apply under this legislation and I ask the House to accept this in the interests of safety and clarity and to ensure there is no conflict of interests in the operation of the aviation business. Neither we, nor the board members could find a simple way around the question of a conflict of interests. It is always possible to find a way around it, but there is no simple or certain way.

The board is responsible for safety standards which are implemented by licensed staff. In the event of an accident it must be clear that board members were not setting standards while at the same time judging whether they met those standards. That would be a conflict of interests which nobody could justify. It would be a clear case of being judge and jury. I do not believe the House wants such a situation to prevail. The issue is not whether we can find a way around a conflict of interests; the fact it could arise would irreparably damage the credibility of the organisation and public confidence in the organisation. We must maintain public confidence and ensure clarity in regard to the safety of the travelling public. This must be at the back of our minds at all times.

The Bill has been changed. Staff members may be appointed; that is a new departure which must meet the wishes of Members on the other side of the House who want worker participation.

Mr. Burke

The more the Minister says, the more disappointed I am. The Minister has amended section 17 so that a worker may be appointed to the board and it is obvious that that worker will be appointed by the Minister——

Mr. N. Treacy

The worker will be appointed by the Minister.

Mr. Burke

—— rather than the workers and he will do what the Minister wants. This has happened in a number of semi-State bodies. The person appointed will be under the thumb of the Minister. Section 17 states that those appointed to the board will be au fait with running the Authority and would have a contribution to make. Who could contribute more than the workers? They are the people most affected. I appeal to the Minister to accept what Senator Ross and Senator Howard said when——

Acting Chairman

We are not discussing an amendment, we are discussing section 71.

Mr. Burke

We oppose it.

Acting Chairman

It is premature to be talking about that. I would ask the Senator to conclude because you are repeating what you said earlier.

Mr. Burke

I am trying to make it easy for the Minister so that no embarrassment will be caused. I am delighted Senator Gallagher is here because——

Ms Gallagher

Thank you Senator. I am glad you appreciate my presence.

Mr. Burke

——the Labour Party must have been asleep when this section was drafted.

Acting Chairman

This is a very important debate.

Mr. Burke

The Minister is embarrassing Senator Gallagher.

Acting Chairman

We are getting a lot of repetition.

Ms Gallagher

The Senator does not have much faith in the worker appointed by the Minister.

Mr. Burke

The Labour Party was supposed to be representing the workers and the unions yet they are letting this through.

Acting Chairman

You have made that point twice already.

Mr. Burke

This has gone through the Dáil and is going through the Seanad this evening.

Mr. Neville

We must accept one principle I strongly believe in — that all workers want to work for a successful organisation that carries out its objectives to the maximum efficiency. Since the people who will work for this organisation will want it to be successful and to carry out its objectives, they should be involved in ensuring that that happens. They can be involved by participating in management at the highest level. I have every trust in the workers to ensure that the objective is carried out.

The Minister listened to the speeches of those who opposed the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act in 1977; this Minister is trotting out the same arguments that were put forward against the Bill at that time, arguments that were overcome by the then Government with the support of his party in Opposition. Deputy Lenihan spoke very well in this House on the issue and the Minister is now putting forward the same argument.

It is important that people are involved in decision making, and that they should feel involved. I would have every confidence that if they were on the board they would ensure that the objectives of the organisation were carried out to the best of their ability. The Minister does not trust them to do so but I think he should.

It can be said that if you have worker participation there is a conflict of interests. The two levels, management and workers, are inherent in any organisation, and people who say otherwise are not accepting reality. There are different interests in any organisation, including the present semi-State bodies with worker participation. There is a coalition of interests; workers have one interest, management have another but they can still co-operate effectively on boards. It is important that workers have a role to play and I do not see why they should not do so in this organisation. The arguments the Minister has made about the success of this organisation can be put forward against worker participation in any organisation because any working environment is a coalition of interests.

Mr. Burke

That is right. That is the Labour Party.

Mr. Neville

Anybody who feels that one can have a unitary approach between workers and management is not facing reality. The workplace is a coalition of interests and these coalitions must be involved in all areas of an enterprise. That should be our ultimate goal. Those issues have been set back over a number of years, probably because of the economic climate. The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts indicated another way, a coalition of interests that would be involved in the management of a company at the highest level.

If I understood the Minister correctly, he said they could be involved at sub-board level within this organisation. The lower you go in any organisation the further you are from the key decision making area. The higher you go the more policy orientated you are. If you can have participation at sub-board level, you are nearer the decision-making process and the granting of licences than you are at board level which is more a policy area. I cannot see why somebody can have sub-board level participation without compromising their position, without having a problem about their vested interests, and that is acceptable to the Minister but moving up to a higher level one is remote from decision making, and one would have a vested interest: it is contradictory. If I accepted the Minister's argument, I would have more of a problem about participating the further down I went in an organisation, rather than going up to the key decision making levels.

Mr. O'Toole

I find the Minister's response to be a mish-mash of contradictions. It does not stand up to logical assessment. The Minister raised more questions than he answered. He has raised a serious issue here. I would like to make one comment, and I hope his officials will back me. In the areas of safety, I have never yet found a situation where a conflict between management and workers' interests on safety was the result of management wanting to implement more safety regulations than the workers. Throughout Europe the reverse has always been true.

In the area of health and safety legislation the Minister for Finance will confirm that the implementation of health and safety regulations is being resisted by management and their interests at every level in Europe. If one wants to implement safety measures one has a far better chance with workers than with management. I could quote chapter and verse on the current position in Ireland a year or two after the implementation of the Health and Welfare at Work Act which in many instances has been ignored by management despite every effort by the ICTU, unions and workers' associations, to have the safety measures implemented.

Would the Minister explain how he can appoint a worker who will not have a conflict of interests but the workers cannot elect a worker without having a conflict of interests? It appears that the Minister's lackey does not have any conflict of interests because his loyalty does not have a bearing on the workplace. The Minister is hardly suggesting that he would appoint somebody to the board who would have a more responsible or loyal attachment to safety regulations than a person elected by the workers. It does not make sense. If a worker can be appointed to the board, then section 17 must be changed. I do not see where that fits into section 17 but I take the Minister's word that there is no exclusion.

The other issue with which I find some contradiction is that the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977-91, deal with sub-board participation. Section 71 of the Bill states that: "The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 to 1991, shall not apply to the company". There seems to be a contradiction there considering that one of those Acts deals with sub-board participation, yet the Minister is telling us that sub-board participation is not excluded by this section. I have not read the Act in detail so if the Minister tells me that there is nuance of difference in what I am saying, or that I am taking a slightly unsophisticated approach to the interpretation, then fair enough. However, what it is in this section is against the spirit of those Acts. The Minister has still not said why it is necessary to exclude them seeing as the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977-91 are specifically inclusive, and all the companies to which it applies are named on the orders determined by Schedules to those Acts. Why is it necessary to specifically exclude the workers in this Bill? Why do we not put it into every Bill? It is outrageous, and not in line with your style of approach, to give the impression that a worker will be less concerned than management about the safety of air passengers. I want to be clear that I do not believe management would be irresponsible in relation to safety. Any air traffic management personnel I have known have been over responsible, if anything. However, it is outrageous to suggest workers would be less than careful in relation to safety.

The Minister argued there would be a conflict of interest, that people would set standards and then sit in judgment as to whether those standards were maintained. Would the Minister explain how this would differ from the board of a company, the chief executive of which is sacked? There are companies throughout the country with executive directors who implement board decisions. Any of us who are involved in an organisation, who sit on its board or central committee and are charged with implementing its decisions, are in precisely the same position. Such persons sit in judgment, as the Minister puts it; or, to put it a better way, explain themselves to the other members of the board of directors. They are answerable to the board. In many ways it is far easier for them to insist that the position of workers is put to the board so that the implementation of safety regulations can be examined in the company from top to bottom to find out where the gap is.

There is no conflict of interest. The fact that the Minister says there is does not mean that is the position. Words do not mean what he says they mean, although I have no doubt his view is well meant and well held. If I am a worker in a company and on its board of directors when an investigation is taking place into the implementation of safety regulations, the fact that I am on the board and that the investigation may refer to some aspect of my involvement should not result in a conflict of interest. Most boards of directors have a standard and clearly stated position on this. An example was given in today's Irish Times where the position of a member of a board was found to be untenable because of other interests and activities. He had to resign because of this stated conflict of interest. It is acceptable that a person may have to leave a board while a matter is being investigated. If a matter closely related to the operation of safety regulations was being discussed by a board and a member of the board was responsible for that matter, it would not be beyond the bounds of normal practice for the board to discuss the issue in that person's absence.

I wish to put three points to the Minister. First, some aspects of the legislation to which we referred deal with sub-board activities. Excluding them, even though the Minister says workers may participate in such activities, is a contradiction. Secondly, workers may not elect a responsible person because there would be a conflict of interest, whereas the Minister may appoint a worker, for whom apparently there would not be such a conflict. If the Minister could explain this it might go a long way towards understanding the thinking behind this section. Finally, all safety regulations of which I have knowledge have been proposed by workers rather than management. This is not a reflection on management who very often have other interests. I ask the Minister to respond to these three points.

Mr. N. Treacy

If the words I use do not mean what they say, we can take it that Senator O'Toole's words mean exactly what they say. I infer from his contribution that he thinks management would be less responsible than workers with regard to aviation safety despite his best efforts to put a different emphasis on it. It is not fair or right that he should cast this reflection on either the management or staff of ANSO or any authority. I refute it entirely.

Mr. O'Toole

What would be fair?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister without interruption, please.

Mr. N. Treacy

I did not interrupt Senator O'Toole but listened to him with interest. If he listened to what I said——

Mr. O'Toole

But what would be fair?

Mr. Cassidy

You are not in the classroom now, Senator O'Toole.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister without interruption from both sides of the House.

Mr. N. Treacy

I made clear that the board would license people. If we were to use the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977-91, in the selection of the board, a certain percentage of its members would license themselves. In the event of an accident they would make decisions in relation to their own actions and those of the people they have licensed. There must be absolute clarity and transparency.

When this Bill was first introduced there was a total bar on worker participation of any type at board level. As a result of the contributions of Members of the Oireachtas, I removed this prohibition so that staff could become members of the board by ministerial appointment. I went more than half way to give an opportunity to the staff. At the end of the day we must be absolutely clear on the safety and conflict of interest issues. It is not a case of mistrusting staff. ANSO staff are very conscious of the need for safety. Their integrity, probity and skills are not in question. They know this. Like me, they know how valuable and essential it is to have a clear, objective board whose independence and probity are without question.

I have listened with great interest to contributions on this issue on Committee Stage in the other House and on Second Stage and now on Committee Stage in this House. We have come a long way. We have given this opportunity to staff. We have been very fair. Legislation relating to other boards has not provided for the full effect of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts. This is not a new departure but is replicating what has been done in other situations. We should be consistent. We should look at what has been done in the past, the changes that have been made, the interests of the travelling public and the need for independence of decision making. We should accept the legislation which is proposed as a result of the changes we have made. I rest my case and leave it to the House to make its decision.

Mr. O'Toole

I asked two questions which were not answered. I asked the Minister to explain how the worker appointed to the board by the Minister would not have a conflict of interest whereas a worker elected by the workers would have. I want a specific answer.

Mr. N. Treacy

I do not know why the Senator does not understand this.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Has Senator O'Toole a second point to make?

Mr. O'Toole

Considering that the legislation referred to in section 71 deals with sub-board activities and that the Minister has said that participation by workers of this company in sub-board activities is acceptable, is there not a clear conflict here? The 1991 legislation deals with sub-board activities. Why is the Minister excluding such activities? This has not been replicated anywhere. It is true — this is a specious argument — that not all companies have worker participation. If this is a replication of other legislation which specifically, by section, excludes workers, such legislation is new to me. Workers have neither been excluded nor included. The 1991 legislation is inclusive, this Bill is exclusive.

Mr. N. Treacy

All workers have a personal interest in the companies in which they work. However, applying this to the board is entirely different. If we appoint persons to the board under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts a conflict of interest may arise. We do not want such a situation to prevail. Consequently, to take into account the interests of workers and the representations that have been made, we have enabled the Minister to appoint a member of staff to the board while not taking into account and excluding from force the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977-91. This gives the board a totally different dimension.

On the other question which Senators O'Toole and Neville raised about sub-board level, there would be no conflict of interest at sub-board level. If that was to be taken to its logical conclusion, no operational decisions could be made at any time. People would have a conflict of interest in every decision they take. Policy and absolute decisions are taken at board level. The operational decisions are taken at sub-board level and down the line. That is the normal commercial environment in which people operate and how normal management decisions are taken. I do not see any difficulty.

We must be absolutely clear on our commitment to the safety of people. There can be no ambiguity or doubt about the integrity of people operating in this area. There can be no doubt attaching to decision making on the operation of national aviation law and policy and international law and regulations which we are obliged to operate. It is in the best interests of Ireland and our aviation policy to accept this proposal.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is section 71 agreed?

Mr. Burke

I have a question.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We have discussed this for over an hour. I have been listening to it on the monitor.

Mr. Burke

I am entitled to ask a question. The Minister of State states that he has gone some way in that he willingly accepted an amendment in the Dáil——

Mr. N. Treacy

I brought in an amendment.

Mr. Burke

The Minister of State brought in an amendment providing for the nomination of a worker to the board. I think that he has sold the greatest dummy of all time to the Dáil. The only way he can convince me this evening that he has not sold them a dummy is to tell us that there will be a worker member of this board.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister of State has already replied to that question.

Mr. Burke

The Minister of State did not answer my question.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair has no control over the Minister of State and I have to put the question.

Mr. Burke

I take it that the Minister of State is not willing to answer my question?

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 18.

Tá

• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cashin, Bill.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Crowley, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Gallagher, Ann.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Lydon, Don.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• Magner, Pat.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Quinn, Feargal.
• Roche, Dick.
• Townsend, Jim.
• Wall, Jack.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Burke, Paddy.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cregan, Denis (Dino).
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Henry, Mary.
• Honan, Cathy.
• Howard, Michael.
• McDonagh, Jarlath.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Sherlock, Joe.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Burke.

Question declared carried.

Sections 72 and 73 agreed to.

SECTION 74.

Question proposed: "That section 74 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

Does section 74(2) cover Government jets? What type of aircraft does it cover?

Mr. N. Treacy

Could the Senator clarify that question please?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Could we have some silence for Senator Burke, please?

Mr. Burke

Does a Government jet come under this section?

Mr. N. Treacy

Under which section?

Mr. Burke

Section 74(2).

Mr. N. Treacy

We are talking about military aircraft.

Mr. Cassidy

He is a junior Member; the Minister will have to excuse him.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 75 agreed to.

SECTION 76.

Question proposed: "That section 76 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ross

Are there any legal proceedings pending?

Mr. N. Treacy

There have been a small number of cases where legal documents have indicated that there may be. We want to ensure that if anything took place between now and vesting day, it could be dealt with by the Authority.

Mr. Ross

But nothing major?

Mr. N. Treacy

No, nothing major.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 77 to 80, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 81.

Question proposed: "That section 81 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

We need quite a bit of clarification on this section. Senator Ross raised a question on section 76 as to whether any claims or legal actions were pending. Section 81 deals with liability for loss occurring before vesting day. It is quite extraordinary that:

where a claim in respect of any loss, injury or damage arising out of the exercise before the vesting day of functions transferred to the company by or under this Act has not been made before that day or, if so made, has not been satisfied or otherwise disposed of, the claim shall, after that day, lie against the company and not against the Minister, any other State authority or the State.

This inflicts an unfair burden on the new body. It should start with a clean sheet. It is equivalent to a person selling a house and saying to the purchaser that he or she is unaware of any claim, but should one arise it is the purchaser's responsibility and that this will be included in the deed. It is a very unfair burden to place on the new company. It is unreasonable and I ask the Minister to explain it.

Mr. N. Treacy

Senator Howard would agree that if we are to compare this to the purchase of a house, we would have to consider whether it was a new house carrying a six year structural guarantee or a second-hand house without a guarantee. It is the same situation here, but we have an insurance policy. As I said on a previous occasion, ANSO carries a large insurance policy to cover all liabilities. This section seeks to maintain the continuity of the situation. If there were liabilities against ANSO, they would transfer to the company, who would have a similar policy.

Mr. Howard

That is fine. ANSO has the insurance policy at present and will have it until vesting day. What happens on vesting day and the day after? Should this insurance company say that its deal was with ANSO and that the Irish Aviation Authority must make its own insurance arrangements, the Authority would have to do so from the first day. Where in the legislation is there a provision that this insurance will transfer from ANSO to the Irish Aviation Authority without out any diminution of its benefits?

Mr. N. Treacy

Section 81 states:

.....

(6) This section does not apply to a claim by one State authority against another.

(7) The Minister shall pay to the company a sum equal to the amount of any payment made by the company in respect of a claim referred to in subsection (1) or (3) including any payment in respect of costs necessarily incurred in relation to the claim by any party.

The company would handle these cases because it would have the expertise and the relevant records which it will receive from ANSO. However, the section goes on to provide that "the Minister shall pay to the company an amount equal to the amount of any payments made by the company in respect of costs necessarily incurred by it in relation to the claim."

Mr. Howard

Has the story not changed somewhat? Before the Minister's last response it was ANSO's insurance company which carried the risks and responsibilities. In the Minister's last response the insurance company has disappeared and the Minister has come in to pick up the tab. My question was: to what extent do the responsibilities of ANSO's insurance company transfer to the new Authority on vesting day?

Mr. N. Treacy

We must differentiate between ordinary claims, which ANSO and the Minister might have to pay, and major claims which the insurance company would pay. There is a marked difference and this section is included to clarify that situation. Subsection (2) states:

Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a loss or an injury or damage referred to in subsection (1) if there is in force a policy of insurance under which the Minister is insured against any sum which he is liable to pay by way of damages or costs in respect of the loss, injury or damage.

If there is insurance cover is provided; if there is no insurance the Minister is responsible. We must have some protection for the travelling public and for the operation of the system so that any change would not affect continuity between the responsibilities of today and those of the new company after vesting day.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Mr. Mooney

Now.