Amendment No. 2 is an alternative to amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 3 is related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 may be discussed together by agreement.
Aviation Regulation Bill, 2000: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), to delete lines 24 and 25 and substitute the following new definition:
"‘airport user' means all passengers arriving and departing through the airport, persons importing and exporting or transporting freight through the airport, communities using the airport to develop their region, the state, and persons responsible for the carriage of passengers, freight or mail by air to or from the airport.".
The reason I tabled the amendment is that the definition of "airport user" in the interpretation section is narrow and confined. The Bill states that "airport user" means any person responsible for the carriage of passengers, mail or freight by air to or from any airport. The definition does not fully classify airport users, who comprise a broader range of persons or groups. I am concerned that if the definition is not amended or deleted it will be restrictive and could cause difficulties down the road. The definition of "airport user" should be geared towards the consumer, the ordinary passenger who travels to and from various destinations through airports. He or she should be the No. 1 priority in terms of users.
The definition implies that airlines are the only airport users and it would be serious to classify airlines as the only category using airports. My amendment proposes a broader definition but I would be quite happy if the definition was removed from the legislation. A broader definition could be substituted by inference or else my proposed definition could be adopted. It is important that the consumer is recognised in the legislation because he or she must have some come back if difficulties arise.
Manufacturers and businesses which import and export goods through airports also need to be recognised because they are fundamental to the success of airports. The regional implications cannot be underestimated. Many communities focus on airports as central economic cornerstones and use them as vehicles to promote their regions. Agencies charged with developing industry highlight airports as one of the key attractions in promoting regions. People involved in the tourism industry use airports as the key vehicle to promote their region.
It is quite important that the definition of "airport user" should be broadened or deleted. The Minister is a pragmatic, matter of fact lady who will recognise the sense of this and take it on board.
I concur with much of Senator Taylor-Quinn's contribution because the definition is extremely narrow and restrictive and it does not go any way near what I know the Minister wants it to mean. It precludes any public interest dimension. I endorse the catalogue of interests articulated by my colleague but there is no reference, for example, to people with disabilities. Senator Taylor-Quinn suggested the deletion of the definition but if the Minister wishes to retain it, the ordinary English dictionary meaning would allow airports to interpret the term in its broadest sense.
Senator Taylor-Quinn did not say "delete".
One of her proposals was to delete the definition.
I said I would prefer if the definition was deleted or replaced by a broader definition, whichever gives the best advantage.
I was speaking in the same spirit. My suggestion is that an ordinary English meaning would allow it to be interpreted in the broadest sense. I took some advice on that and I believe it to be the case. A wide variety of interested parties are not encompassed in the definition and these were mentioned by Senator Taylor-Quinn. For example, disabled passengers are important. Discrimination against people with disabilities has been raised in the House many times recently and was raised very forcefully again earlier. Previous legislation, such as the Irish Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act, 1998, and the UK Airports Act, 1986, does not define the term "airport user", even though it is widely used in it. I agree forcefully with the sentiments expressed. I believe the Minister will accept that the parliamentary draftsman's definition is too restrictive and narrow and, therefore, I hope she will accept the amendment.
Mr. Ryan
I am concerned about the narrowness of the definition. I have no particular obsession with an alternative form of words but it should be left, as Senator Fitzgerald said, to be interpreted as normal English would imply or, alternatively, extended into the community of users well beyond those mentioned. I have had a problem with one other regulator who seems to believe quite passionately that simply by encouraging competition she guarantees good quality service for consumers.
There is only one "she" who already is a regulator.
Mr. Ryan
She resolutely refuses to enforce what are meant to be laws against a particular cable television provider because she believes competition will mean that consumers will get the best service. It is a narrow view of how the system works to believe that simply because there is competition there will be a better service.
I had occasion to pass through Dublin Airport recently on my return from North America. The contrast between the quality of the airport I departed from in North America and Dublin Airport was painful in terms of cleanliness, space, staff attitudes—
The contrast between which airports?
Mr. Ryan
O'Hare International Airport, Chicago and Dublin Airport.
Was Dublin Airport better?
Mr. Ryan
No, it was painfully, disgracefully, unequivocally worse.
I find that hard to believe.
That is Senator Ryan's opinion.
Mr. Ryan
Yes, and even more forcefully that of my wife who was with me. It was an absolute embarrassment to believe that some people could arrive into Dublin Airport from O'Hare International Airport and experience such a contrast. For instance, there is building work going on and one must walk through shuttered corridors. It is not beyond the wit of man to paint the shuttering. That implies an indifference to the short-term concerns of one's customers. If Senator Quinn was refurbishing a supermarket, he would not funnel his customers through an undecorated, cheapskate, knocked together tunnel made from cheap timber. I walked through one in Dublin Airport. That is what I mean when I refer to the need to make sure that regulators take everybody involved into consideration, otherwise they forget the basic user.
On Committee Stage we get down to the nitty gritty of legislation but I get a sense that we should stick with the question of the definition of "airport user" and what way it should be handled. Having listened to Senators Taylor-Quinn and Fitzgerald it seems that the term is so restrictive that the best solution would be to withdraw it and rely on dictionary usage, as Senator Ryan said. On that basis the issue regarding the definition would probably be resolved. It must be so much wider. We want the Bill to last for some time and we cannot really forecast what the situation will be like in five, ten or 15 years time. It would be far too restrictive to insert such detail in the Bill. The Minister would be wise to consider accepting the deletion of the term.
I know there was an argument about Report Stage prior to my arrival. I believe there should be a gap between Committee and Report Stages. It is not a meaningful exercise to be engaged in, ramming things through on Committee Stage and then running to Report Stage when there is no chance to regroup, rethink or rephrase amendments. I hope the Leader of the House, who is responsible for ordering business, will order Report Stage of the Bill for next week.
Three amendments have been discussed and each seems to come down in favour of deletion, although I am not sure about Senator Ryan's position. However, Senators Taylor-Quinn and Liam Fitzgerald have taken that view. As several Senators have redefined what is meant in their amendments, I suggest that the House should note the three amendments and during the coming days we will seek a composite wording for Report Stage which would embrace what the Senators have said.
Is the amendment being pressed?
No. The Minister is a sensible and pragmatic person and she appreciates our position. She can appreciate the restrictiveness of subsection (1), along with the inherent dangers that may arise in future. I tabled the amendment to try to expand the subsection's provisions, but I am still not entirely happy with it because of Senator Quinn's contribution.
I noticed that in what the Senator said.
As Senator Quinn said, we do not know how that could be worded later. The definition could perhaps be broadened quite considerably so, on balance, the best compromise may be to delete it completely. I am depending on the Minister to return to the matter on Report Stage.
Between now and Report Stage, there will be interaction between the officials, myself and the Senators who tabled the amendments.
I thank the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 24 and 25, to delete "‘airport user' means any person responsible for the carriage of passengers, mail or freight by air to or from an airport;".
In view of what has been outlined, I believe the Minister will look pragmatically at this matter. I am confident that when she comes back on Report Stage, she will table a more widely embracing composite amendment as an alternative. I look forward to that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 13, to delete "the".
This is a technical, draftsman's amendment. The word "the" should not have been included, as per the rules of drafting.
I am not quite sure if I am correct, but in line 13 I thought I saw "the" appearing twice. I am sorry, it means the Minister for Public Enterprise. Is that the term?
That is me.
I am sorry. I was reading the wrong line.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following new definition:
"‘Regulator' means chairperson of the Commission;".
The Bill clearly and specifically relates to regulating airports. In her speech on Second Stage, the Minister repeatedly referred to the regulator. We all know that this regulator is in waiting and is working away in the background, awaiting the passage of this legislation. Given the nature of the Bill, it is simpler, more straightforward and makes much more sense to define clearly who this person is; it is the airport regulator.
While we recognise that a commission will be established with three people on it and that a chairman will be appointed, it is important that somebody should be deemed to be and identified as the regulator with responsibility for final arbitration. It is important that the chairperson of the commission should be known and referred to as the regulator. It makes common sense.
I am concerned that sections of the Bill may have been lifted too readily from the Airports Act, 1986. The commission follows an almost identical path to what is contained in that Bill. Let us show our own innovativeness and let us be clear and specific. "Regulator" is a straightforward term and I am sure the Minister will not have any difficulty with it.
We discussed this at great length. It involves accountability. We are allowing for three people to constitute a commission. One has already been appointed and the same is happening with the telecommunications regulator. There will be three people of equal standing. There will not be a person who is the chairperson of the three members, which is what the Senator proposes. Senator Taylor-Quinn's amendment states that "‘Regulator' means chairperson of the Commission".
Yes.
The commission will comprise three men or women who will be equal in status. The purpose of having three members is to do away with the position where one person takes wide-ranging decisions and has almost dictatorial abilities. It takes 15 people to make a decision in Cabinet and it takes the Dáil or Seanad to vote on Oireachtas business. However, I have always thought that it is wrong for one person to be able to decide matters. It is also unfair because on one person's shoulders may rest the whole conduct of important areas of life, areas which we are giving away with increasing frequency and without having corresponding accountability. We are settling that with a Bill in the autumn, however. The regulator will not be the chairperson of the commission. The members will be equal and there will not be a chairperson.
Section 11(3) states that:
Where there is more than one commissioner, the Minister shall appoint one of them to be chairperson of the Commission on such terms and conditions of appointment, including remuneration, as the Minister may fix . . .
There will be a chairperson.
Yes, but they will all be equal regulators.
I understand what the Minister is saying.
One will not be saying, "Here I am and the other two are my subordinates." They will all be equal in status, rank and operational ability or remit.
Yes.
I see that Senator Ryan is nodding, but it is an important democratic point.
I appreciate the Minister's position and in other circumstances I would appreciate what she is saying, but in this particular case what is happening is that the commission is taking over the Minister's responsibility. While the Minister has wonderful civil servants and backup in her Department, in the final analysis the buck stops with the Minister.
Yes, but that Minister goes to Cabinet where there is collective responsibility.
The Minister goes to Cabinet for major policy decisions.
Yes.
However, the Minister does not go to Cabinet for the ordinary day-to-day running of the Department. She is head of her Department, she makes the decisions and the buck stops with her because she has the responsibility. The Minister is transferring part of this responsibility to a commission of not more than three people, although it could be one or two. She will appoint one as chairperson. The real problem is the lack of accountability, and that can be found in all walks of life. The buck stops with the Minister but the Minister is now transferring that responsibility. It is important that one person is in a position to take the final responsibility and that should be the chairperson of the commission.
No, sorry—
That is the reason I tabled the amendment. I am concerned there will be a lack of accountability and a passing of the buck in the commission and that no one person will take responsibility. That is not in the best interests of the consumer.
It is like looking at a glass and deciding whether it is half full or half empty. I look at this issue the other way around. It is wrong to have one person take enormous responsibility for major areas of our life. The reason for having three is to allow for a vote to be taken. The only point of doing all that, which I am very keen to do, is that there would be equality among the three. It is wrong to have just one person responsible in the regulatory role.
To use a simple analogy, three heads are better than one. I can see where Senator Taylor-Quinn is coming from and I empathise with the sentiment she expressed but in the final analysis we are putting responsibility on three heads. Those three people collectively must shoulder this whole gambit of responsibility that is being passed over to them from the Department. In that context, therefore, it would be much wiser and in the interests of greater accountability. I can see where the Minister is coming from also because if the power is given to one person, that person can invoke dictatorial powers. If we enshrine the word "chairperson" in the Bill, we are legally making that person the chairperson by virtue of the regulator and, therefore, that person is legally, solely and singularly responsible but because of the nature of what the Minister is proposing to do, it would be much wiser, in the interests of good collective management, that we should not enshrine it in the Bill and legally copper-fasten the title of chairperson. Rather, let us have a legal commission with a regulator as part of a three man team.
I am concerned about the people who may need a comeback, be they passengers, airlines or whatever but particularly members of the public. Airlines would know the system but members of the public may not have the same level of knowledge. They have to contact the commission but the commission is an entity, not an individual, and there may be difficulties in relation to accessing it.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment being pressed?
I will withdraw it reluctantly.
There is no such term, but I thank the Senator.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 6, subsection (2)(a), lines 24 and 25, to delete “a reference to a Part, section or Schedule is a reference to a Part or section of, or a Schedule to, this Act” and substitute “a reference to a section is a reference to a section of this Act,”.
This is a technical amendment. It is pure daft. It is a draftsman engaging in tautology.
Mr. Ryan
I wish to register my agreement with the Minister's comments as well as with the amendment.
I have to tell a story. When I was involved in a major, complicated Bill, the Consumer Credit Bill, I was constantly saying that and I got a call from a draftsman.
The Minister got her knuckles rapped.
No, I did not. I told him he had one job and I had another.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
I ask this question on every Bill – why can we not have a time limit within which the Minister must appoint a day to be the establishment day? Section 3 states that the Minister shall by order appoint a day to be the establishment day for the purposes of this Act. Why can we not state in legislation like this that the establishment day will be at most three or six months after enactment?
I will tell the Deputy the reason.
Mr. Ryan
Will they not let the Minister do it?
First, the democratic business of this House, the other House and the committees cannot be foreseen. There could also be the occasion of a Government falling.
Mr. Ryan
I do not want to delay the House but I would suggest six months from the time of enactment of the legislation. Legislation usually contains many prescriptions from Government about the timetable within which other bodies have to do their business but Governments are reluctant to put any prescription on themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
I have a query about section 4 which is about the expenses of the Minister. It states that the expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. That is fine except that at the end of the explanatory memorandum it states that there are no significant budgetary or financial implications in the proposals contained in this Bill. If there are no significant financial implications in the proposals contained in the Bill, why do we have a section dealing with the expenses of the Minister?
Lest the Senator think otherwise, I have the lowest expenses of any Minister. When all those horrid tables are done about everyone, I am always languishing at the bottom because I do not go anywhere and I do not entertain anyone. Be that as it may, this is standard. I do not know the reason it is included but the Senator knows it is in every Bill.
Mr. Ryan
I ask this question all the time.
I bet the Senator does.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister should not say it like that.
The Senator is right. It is common sense. Just because something was done since 1922, or whatever year we all started doing our business, does it have to be repeated ad nauseam? I do not know. Senators better do something about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following new subsection:
(2)In giving such general policy directions provided under subsection (1) the Minister shall have regard to the following policy objectives–
(a) to foster a strong and competitive Irish airline industry by providing enough airport capacity where it is needed;
(b) to minimise the impact of airports on the environment generally, and to ensure that land use planning and conservation policies take fully into account both the development needs arising from air ports and the environmental consequences;
(c) to make the best use of existing facilities and provide new capacity only when this economically justified;
(d) to encourage the use and development of regional airports so that they meet the maximum demand they can attract;
(e) to ensure that all Irish airports continue to maintain the highest standards of safety in accordance with internationally accepted rules and standards;
(f) to ensure that air transport facilities should not in general be subsidised by the taxpayer or the ratepayer and
(g) to ensure that airports, whoever their owners, should normally operate as commercial undertakings.”.
Section 10 is a section that is often contained in legislation and about which I am always wary because it states: "The Minister may give such general policy directions to the Commission as he or she considers appropriate to be followed by the Commission in the exercise of its functions". We are endeavouring to put some flesh on the policy areas that should be of concern to the Minister, and we list seven of them in the amendment. They contain, among others, the need to foster a strong and competitive Irish airline industry; to minimise the impact of airports on the environment; to make the best use of existing facilities; to encourage the use and development of regional airports etc. I would be dishonest if I said I intended to spend the day arguing about each of those with the Minister but there is a case to be made for more than just a general policy directive phraseology. Some statement from the Minister at a future stage as to what she believes to be the general policy areas where directives would be issued would be preferable to this somewhat vague formulation.
We gave consideration to that and to all the ones that were put down. Senator Ryan has listed various activities on which he believes I or some future Minister should give policy directions. The Minister of the day could become involved in giving a growing number of policy segments. Senator Ryan's amendment is intended to be far-reaching but it might turn out to be too prescriptive because it would itemise areas in which the Minister could give policy directions. Important directions which could prove vital to the running of an airport might be omitted.
We examined other legislation and it is clear this provision is a general one which allows us to move with the times. I do not want a Minister circumscribed in giving directions. Perhaps we could include a term such as inter alia or “encompassing areas such as” which would clar ify that these directions are only a part of other tasks undertaken by the Minister.
Mr. Ryan
While I share the Minister's unease with parliamentary draftsmen, I accept they have skills the rest of us do not possess.
They will never do another Bill for me again.
The Minister had better be careful as she is on the record.
Mr. Ryan
I rest on the general assumption that I will never be head of a Government Department and therefore I can say what I like about parliamentary draftsmen.
Perhaps if the Senator stays where he is –"Tiocfaidh ár lá," they used to say.
That was another party.
I withdraw that remark and apologise to the Senator.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister must remind me to tell her the best story I know about the British civil service which culminates in "Tiocfaidh ár lá". I will tell her outside the House as I cannot tell her here.
I will take the Senator up on that.
Mr. Ryan
I do not want this amendment to be prescriptive and to outline the only directions a Minister can give. However, there is a case for the Oireachtas to ensure any Minister has a balanced view of public policy.
Perhaps we could have guidelines.
Mr. Ryan
I wonder if the phrase "shall have regard" is as prescriptive as the Minister says. That phrase is in the legislation later and clearly means one must think about these matters but one does not have to think about them in isolation. I will not press the amendment but I might resubmit it on Report Stage. I would have drafted it as "Notwithstanding the generality of the subsection, the Minister shall have regard, inter alia, to the following. . . . ”. For example, one could imagine a Minister not being as keen on regional airports. Some of the more commercially focused of our Ministers could have forgotten about the need to develop these airports which are an important part of our infrastructure.
There should be a regional remit.
Mr. Ryan
Others of a left-wing persuasion might forget the necessity to make airports function commercially. There is a need to ensure that airports are, as far as possible, commercially viable and self-sustaining entities. These concerns are reasonable but I do not intend to press the amendment.
Subsection (2)(d) of Senator Ryan's amendment which states the Minister shall encourage the use and development of regional airports so that they meet the maximum demand is a good insertion, as are those ensuring Irish airports maintain the highest standard of safety and should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. There is a balance in the amendment between the commercial remit, the development of regional airports and safety considerations. Perhaps we will look at a way of making this section more encompassing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
It is important to reiterate that a wide range of policy issues should be considered by the Minister. I understand the intention of Senator Ryan's amendment but the section in general should provide that the Minister should give such policy directions to the commission as are considered appropriate at that time. I have no difficulty with this Minister but we are legislating for the attitudes of future Ministers. Perhaps the Minister will reconsider this section and make it broader. I understand she is leaving it as it is so every policy direction can be examined.
One could leave out some.
That is the reality. I have put down an amendment relating to policy and perhaps I should have tabled it to this section. It is important that vulnerable groups are protected and included in the legislation. Perhaps the Minister and the Department will think about addressing this section on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
I am pleased the Minister has provided that a commissioner may be removed from office for stated misbehaviour. I agree with this provision as yesterday we had a dispute about members of the human rights commission who could be dismissed for "reasons stated" which did not specify misbehaviour, which is a dangerous precedent. This was the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who do not listen and whose unwillingness to accept amend ments I mentioned to the Minister outside the House.
I also welcome the provision in section 11(10) that a commissioner shall not, for a period of 12 months following his or her resignation, hold employment or act as a consultant where he or she may be likely to use or disclose information. Is the Minister satisfied 12 months is long enough? I would have thought two years would be better. In Britain the provision for members of government is about two years. I will not press the matter but twelve months is a little short.
When the Secretary General of a Department leaves office, he or she is prohibited for 12 months from doing work related to the Department. This is provided for in many Acts and I think it is reasonable.
Section 11(10) specifies that a commissioner shall not, for a period of 12 months, hold any office where he or she "may be likely to use or disclose information acquired by him or her in the exercise of the functions of the Commission". I would be cynical about legislating for this because unless it is a person of character, honour and decency who appreciates and recognises the position he or she has left and acts accordingly, no amount of legislation will make a difference. He or she may not take up employment but could be a private consultant to a company, providing them with information. Perhaps a highly honourable person could take up employment immediately and not give information because they recognise the conflict of interest. The provision is not worth the paper it is written on, whether one extends it to two years, leaves it as it is or removes it. It comes down to the inherent honour and decency of the person concerned. One can say it is a protection but if people want to get around this they will. They may not be employed directly but may be private consultants providing information and advice. It is a bit of a nonsense.
I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Taylor-Quinn. We have had terrible experiences in Dublin Corporation – it is parallel to this so it is relevant to the point – whereby we lost some of the best and the brightest. There was no moratorium on consultancy, although perhaps there has been one in more recent years. I have a sneaking suspicion, as I am sure Senators Taylor-Quinn and Ryan do, that they were involved in consultancy as soon as they closed the door.
They were possibly consulting before they closed the door.
Right. I have been very concerned on an ongoing basis about the brain drain of some of our best and brightest.
They are not being paid enough – that is why they are going.
I agree totally with the Minister. It is happening in the Defence Forces as well. However, while I sympathise strongly with Senator Ryan, I am not sure that, as Senator Taylor-Quinn said, it can be legislated for in this way by providing for a longer period. I have a lot of experience of individuals in places other than local authorities who have followed this path.
Mr. Ryan
I apologise to the Minister as I have to leave now. I mean no discourtesy to her. I would have immensely enjoyed the rest of the day but I had a—
I would have enjoyed it too.
Mr. Ryan
Thank you. I believe everything Senators Fitzgerald and Taylor-Quinn said about this. However, it is better to have it than not to have it.
That is the point. I was about to say that, at least, there is a provision in law now if they are found guilty.
Mr. Ryan
At least it is illegal now.
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 12 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Under section 16, there is a distinct difference between the conditions for election for a commissioner and a person employed by the commission. I believe in equality and fair play for all across the board. Why should a commissioner be discriminated against in regard to elections and an employee of the commission not be? The section states:
Where a commissioner is–
(a) nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann,
(b) nominated to stand as a candidate for election as a member of either House of the Oireachtas or to the European Parliament. . .
. . . he or she shall thereupon cease to be a member of the Commission.
However, a person employed by the commission will only cease to hold their position on being elected. Why should a commissioner's position cease on being nominated rather than on being elected? There is a discrepancy.
At present, local authority employees up to a certain grade can be active in politics. I know that, although I do not know what the grade is, because I know people involved. What is the level?
I do not know but a person who was elected to this House was not entitled to be here.
Employees under a certain level can be actively involved in politics but those above it cannot. I am sure the Senator knows that.
I do. This comes up all the time. It is grossly unfair that people in senior positions are being discriminated against. This should apply across the board. Of course, Members of the Oireachtas are discriminated against in every regard. There are some wonderful Members who could serve extremely well in many organisations and boards but they are excluded because of their Oireachtas membership. In this scenario, a commissioner ceases to be a member of the commission, whereas the employee will be seconded from his or her employment. Does the Minister see my point?
I do.
It is a bit unfair. I am talking about fair play and equality. This discriminates against people in senior positions.
The person in the senior position has a fat salary to go with it and commensurate fat duties, whereas the person in the lower, although I do not like to use the word, or more junior—
Medium scale.
—or medium position does not have that salary or the commensurate duties. I was trying to think of the name of the former Meath Deputy who lost his seat in the last election.
Brian Fitzgerald.
He was a member of the administrative staff of Meath County Council while he was very active in politics. He told me that he was at the top grade where he could still be active in politics.
I support fully what the Minister is saying. However, I am sympathetic to the sentiments expressed by Senator Taylor-Quinn. There is a reference at the bottom of the list in the section to a member of a local authority. We are well into the process of reforming local authorities under the Minister, Deputy Dempsey. However, it is bordering on harsh to say to a local authority member, who is on a very low salary and has submitted himself or herself to the people to be elected, that he or she cannot serve on the commission.
The Senator could take that up with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, in regard to his Bill. That is the way to do it.
Would that get around it, in terms of the commission?
If it is legislated for in this Bill, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, will not be able to do anything about it.
His Bill is an omnibus one that would take that into account.
The point I am concerned about is that if a person is nominated to the Dáil or Seanad—
That is the point.
There is quite a difference between being nominated and getting elected.
As we all know.
I was a member of a semi-State board. When I was nominated to stand for Seanad Éireann, I had to resign automatically from the semi-State board, although I might not have been lucky enough to be elected. I could not attend any board meeting after the date of my nomination. There is a difference between being nominated and being elected.
That is the point.
Perhaps a person who was nominated could resign their position for a period until after the election and, in the event of their not being successful, could then resume their position. I would like the Minister to look at that more carefully and return to us on it.
Is that Senator Taylor-Quinn's point, or is her point about the disparity between the people at the top and those lower down?
It is the combination of the disparities between those at the top and those lower down and between the nomination and the election. The person at the middle level shall be "seconded from his or her employment. . . on such nomination or election, or when he or she is regarded as having been elected", whereas the commissioner shall cease to hold office when he or she is nominated. The section states that where a commissioner is nominated as a Member of Seanad Éireann, "he or she shall thereupon cease to be a member of the Commission". This is double edged, in that there is a difference between being nominated and being elected and a difference between the two strands.
While I appreciate the commissioner is on a good salary, the reality is that the commissioner also has responsibilities. The Minister knows as well as I do that nomination means nothing – getting elected is what it is all about. A person who is nominated but not elected is left sitting high and dry as he or she is neither a commissioner nor a public representative. That is a rather invidious position. The legislation needs to be looked at again.
This is clearly part of a wider local authority remit. I will discuss it with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, before I return to the House next week to see what he is planning in that field.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 11, subsection (4)(a), line 19, to delete“section 27(1)” and substitute “section 26(c)”.
This is purely a technical amendment to delete section 27(1) and substitute section 26(c).
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 12, subsection (7)(a), line 4, to delete “airport operator” and substitute “airport authority (within the meaning of the Act of 1998)”.
This is a similar amendment which seeks to delete "airport operator" and substitute "airport authority" within the meaning of the Act of 1998.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 11 is a Government amendment and amendment No. 12 is cognate. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are related. Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 are to be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 12, subsection (7)(b), line 12, to delete “a business” and substitute “an undertaking.”
Amendment No. 11 proposes to delete "a business" and substitute "an undertaking" in page 12, subsection (7)(b), line 12, as “business” is rather narrow. Amendment No. 12 does the same in subsection 7(c), while amendment No. 13 substitutes “an undertaking” for “a business or land” in subsection 7(d). Amendment No. 14 substitutes “any undertaking” for “a business or land” in page 12, line 22.
Will the Minister elaborate on the removal of "business" and substitution of "undertaking"? What is the thinking behind that?
The draftsman suggested it.
I do not have a dictionary and I am trying to find definitions for "business" and "undertaking".
It is nothing to do with being buried.
Hopefully not. How does one define undertaking? One undertakes to carry out works or commits to doing something. It is a very strange exclusion and we need a better explanation of the reasons behind it. What is an undertaking?
The reason behind it is that the draftsman suggested to our Department that "business" is a very narrow term and that "undertaking" is broader and would be better.
They consulted a dictionary.
There is no deviousness in it.
I am still not satisfied. Perhaps the Minister will find out what the thinking is behind this.
No, one never finds out the thinking behind a draftsman's proposal. They are a law unto themselves and they think in a different way from you and me.
We will have to consult the dictionary. We are talking about airports, aviation business and everything related to those matters, but we must now discuss everything in relation to those undertakings. Let us have a clear definition of undertaking. What is it? This does not make sense.
One undertakes to do something.
Precisely. I could undertake to join Senator Moylan for lunch. Is that enough? Let us be clear and have some idea of what it means. This does not make sense.
I will ask the undertaker, who is the draftsman, to give me a reason.
It will be interesting to hear the response.
I am sure that draftsmen are all very qualified and professional and I am taking nothing from their character, but they keep worrying away at words to find out what difficulty they can cause for particular sentences.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 12, subsection (7)(c), line 15, to delete “a business” and substitute “an undertaking”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 12, subsection (7)(d), line 19, to delete “a business or land” and substitute “an undertaking”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 12, line 22, to delete "land or any business" and substitute "any undertaking".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are consequential on amendments No. 17 and 18, therefore, amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are to be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 13, subsection (2)(a), line 10, after “subsection,” to insert “or”.
This is a draftsman's suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 13, subsection (2)(b), line 13, to delete “matter, or” and substitute “matter.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 13, subsection (2), lines 14 to 17, to delete paragraph (c).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 13, subsection (2), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following new paragraph;
"(d) he or she or any member of his or her household is considering or in the process of acquiring land or property to which such a matter relates,”.
It is vitally important that an amendment of this nature be included in this section. I am aware of scenarios where people were legally obliged to declare interests in a variety of areas. They did so and as the law stands everything appeared above board, yet they would have had an active interest in land and property acquisitions and would have been closely involved at certain levels. However, the focus of declarations of interest was so narrow that they were not included as they were not registered owners of the lands in question when development of those lands was being considered. There was a clear vested interest in reality, but that was not declared as there was no legal obligation to do so. This amendment relates to a person "considering or in the process of acquiring land or property", which may seem to be going too far, but I have very valid reasons for tabling the amendment.
We took advice on this and one cannot legislate for a person considering or thinking. It is not possible because one does not know what a person is thinking. It would be illegal and impossible. One cannot know what a person is thinking.
What if the amendment was altered to refer to a person in the process of procuring lands or property, or to a person attempting or in the process of attempting to procure lands?
One cannot legislate for people considering.
I take that point.
No matter what we do we cannot get at a person's mind. We can look at this, though we cannot accept the amendment as it is worded now.
I can understand where the Minister is coming from. Perhaps the amendment should state: ". . . is in the process of attempting to procure or acquire lands".
There would have to be an open manifestation of that, but we can look at this.
The danger here is that if one refers to a process it is the same situation as a person nominated for election. That is an immediate parallel. Section 18 states: "Where a commissioner, member of the staff . . . a consultant, adviser, or other person engaged by the Commission has a pecuniary interest or other beneficial interest in, or material to, any matter which falls to be considered by the Commission, he or she shall . . ." Senator Taylor-Quinn's amendment includes a person "considering or in the process of acquiring land or property". Even if a person is in the process of acquiring land, he or she still has not acquired that land. If I am in the process of running for election, I have not been elected.
I realise that.
There is a parallel here that could be dangerous.
I recognise what Senator Fitzgerald is saying, but there is merit to the amendment. If one is in the process of acquiring land or property, one has an interest. The term "considering" might be too general.
One might be considering buying a new house without ever buying one.
We consider all sorts of things that never come to fruition, and that is just as well in many cases. This section is about making a declaration of interest as appropriate. If somebody is in the process of acquiring the land or property, it is appropriate that it would be known. Even if the transaction fell through, it is still an interest worthy of declaration.
Will Senator Taylor-Quinn work on the amendment before Report Stage?
I will. The reason for putting down this amendment is clear. I am a member of Clare County Council and groups of councillors have met on various occasions to discuss developments, particularly large developments, within the electoral area. In one instance, a large development was due to take place.
Was it housing?
Housing in addition to many other features. We were trying to establish who was involved in the development. The company had a fancy name with the word "Holdings" after it but we could not find out who it was. It subsequently transpired that one of the people involved was also closely involved in directing and advising the councillors in relation to matters taking place at that time—
About that development?
Yes. We, the councillors, were not aware of that.
A clear conflict of interest.
It was. When I made subsequent inquiries I was told that the person concerned was not at the time the registered owner of the property but had a broad interest in the matter, such as one is statutorily obliged to declare. The interest involved was massive, but legally the person was operating within the system. There was a clear conflict of interest of which the councillors were unaware. A declar ation was not made because it was not legally required.
That is the reason for this amendment. I accept the deficiency in using the word "considering". I will reword it to read "he or she or any member of his or her household is procuring or in the process of acquiring".
The Senator should put the amendment down on Report Stage and we will deal with it then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I seek clarification of section 18(f2>d). This provides that where a commissioner or member of the staff has a pecuniary or other beneficial interest they should withdraw. What if there is only one commissioner?
I have dealt with that already, not with regard to withdrawing but with regard to having three commissioners.
If there were only one commissioner and that person had a pecuniary or beneficial interest and was obliged to withdraw, there would be no commission. There must be more than one commissioner to make the provision operable.
We spoke about this earlier because it arose during the discussion about a chairperson. I intend to have three. A Bill will be introduced in the autumn to create three Etain Doyles, as it were.
Can I take it that there will be no less than three?
It is envisaged that there will be no less than three.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome this section. Its inclusion is vital. It will serve to allay the concerns we expressed in the context of section 11.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
This section states that "the Commission may make regulations imposing a levy ("levy"), to meet but not to exceed the estimated operating costs and expenses of the Commission. . . ". I am a little concerned about this. The Bill transfers to the commission some of the work carried out by the Minister and her Department and the commission will have to generate its income from that work. The imposition of this levy will mean, I presume, an additional expense on the airports—
And the airlines.
I hope this will not cause greater financial pressure, particularly for airlines and airports which might be in slight difficulty or finding it difficult to stay in financially safe water. This cost was previously carried by the Department but it is now being transferred to the commission. The airports did not previously carry this cost. What is the estimated cost of operating the commission? What type of levies will be considered? How much money will be extracted from the airports and how will that be decided? It is important that airport managers should have an idea of the additional expenditure that will arise in their operations each year and how they will allocate that within the various structures in the airport.
I support the sentiments of Senator Taylor-Quinn. I have the same concern. A number of the regional airports are finding it difficult to make ends meet—
Is the Senator referring to airports such as Farranfore?
Yes.
This does not apply to those airports. They are privately owned.
The regional airports will be excluded from the levy?
Yes. This applies to the State airports, not to airports such as Farranfore and Knock.
It would if they had more than one million passengers. If airports such as Farranfore, Donegal, Galway and Sligo have over one million passengers per year in the future, the provision will apply. At present, it applies only to the three State airports because they have a throughput of more than one million passengers annually. Of the three, Shannon Airport is of great interest to me and, indeed, the Minister. I am concerned about this provision. Dublin Airport is a money spinner but Shannon is a different matter. Cork Airport is also developing strongly. I am sure the manager of Shannon Airport would like a rough idea of the annual cost that will arise in relation to the services provided by the commission so provision can made for it.
Did the Senator not read my amendment?
When Knock Airport has a million passengers per year, it will be willing to pay that cost.
Some people thought there would never be an airport at Knock.
It would be a miracle.
It would. This section provides that the commission may by regulation impose an annual levy on certain undertakings in order to fund the operating costs of the office. It will raise only enough money to pay its costs. It is likely that only Aer Rianta and the Irish Aviation Authority will pay the levy as the other regulated entities, for example, the air carriers and the travel trade, already pay a licence fee, under separate legislation, for the services provided. It will, however, be a matter for the commission as to how and on whom it wants to impose the levy. In Britain, there is a levy of 20p per passenger for non-designated airports and 53p for the four designated airports, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Manchester. The regulations as made must be laid before the Oireachtas.
The important thing is that the commission must be paid for, and it will not be paid for by the Government. It must be paid for by those who operate the airports. The Government envisages that will be Aer Rianta and the Irish Aviation Authority. It will be a matter for the commission, but it will only raise enough money to pay its way, it will not be a profit making body.
We always ask for feasibility studies and reports into the viability of propositions. Surely the Minister and the Department carried out an assessment of the possibilities inherent in this transfer of responsibility from the Minister to the commission. Does the Minister have an estimate of the cost of running the commission on an annual basis? There is no point saying that the commission will decide. Nothing is done these days without preparing reports and feasibility studies first. There should be some clue what the cost will be. I appreciate that Aer Rianta and the IAA will deal with this because they are the bodies covered in the remit. As the other airports expand, however, they may also become involved. We should have some indication of future running costs.
I do not have a figure because part of the remit of the commission will be to take into account the economic analysis of its study of the airports. This Bill allows the commission to do that. It was the same with the Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1996. No one in the industry complained because it was quite a small levy. The energy commission is the same. No one ever said to me that they did not like the way the levy was operated. The commission is not a profit making organisation but it must cover its costs. By law the regulator will be accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The commission will have to appear before a statutory committee of the Houses when called and will have to give a forecast, an economic analysis, and lay out the programme for work. That ensures accountability. It is provided for in the legislation.
The Minister gave us the figures for England – levies of 20p and 53p. In that scenario, an airport with over one million passengers will pay a levy of £200,000. When the levy is 53p the figure will increase to £530,000. Considerable sums of money are involved for airports such as Shannon and Cork. It will not have the same economic impact on Dublin Airport because of the volume of traffic and the rate of turn-over.
I must leave some work for the regulator to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 17, paragraph(b), line 1, to delete “six” and substitute “6”.
This is a technical amendment. It is being made in line with the rules of drafting which require that a numeral should be used in these circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."
This section refers back to section 27(3), which requires that the commission periodically, and whenever requested, reports on the performance of its functions to a joint committee of the Oireachtas.
Section 28 deals with the separation of accounts. It states: "The Commission may seek that a person in respect of whom it has been given a function under this Act shall keep accounts in such a manner as the Commission may determine, in respect of the activities regulated by the Commission, separate from its other activities, and shall produce audited annual accounts in respect of its regulated activities which shall be submitted to the Commission within 6 months of the end of the accounting year." I am not sure what that means. What is involved in separating the accounts and what activities are being separated?
The commission would have work activities, operational activities and financial activities. It is a matter of good housekeeping. The section states "and shall produce audited annual accounts in respect of its regulated activities which shall be submitted to the Commission . . .".
Could we have clarification of regulated activities and other activities? What are the regulated activities?
The regulated activities are those given to the commission as part of the legislation.
In what other activities can the commission be involved if they are not included in the legislation?
Various companies are being regulated – the travel trade, Aer Rianta and so on.
That is where I am confused. I assumed that all activities involved would be covered by this legislation. I am curious to know if there is another dimension to this.
It is put in for transparency. The regulator would have responsibility for regulating aspects of the business of a travel operator who might also be a publican. The travel agent I use in Athlone also runs a pub. The travel trade makes up one part of her business and the pub the other. The regulator would not want to know how her pub was doing, it would have nothing to do with him.
I am curious about the capers the regulator will be up to. We are clearly regulating his remit and obligations, but the section states that the commission may determine "in respect of the activities regulated by the Commission, separate from its other activities. . . ". There will be regulated activities and other activities. Unlike the pub owner in Athlone who runs a pub and a travel agency, this group is established by legislation to carry out specific regulated activities. Will the Minister clarify the other activities?
I will come back with a clarification of other activities. I am only drawing on my knowledge of a very good travel agent who has a pub.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides that premises or offices for the commission can be leased, equipped and maintained. Surely there should be the option for purchasing offices and premises. Will the Minister give us an indication of her thinking as to where the premises might be located?
I think he is in Mount Street. I wonder can he buy it?
It is with the Minister's consent.
He is located in Mount Street and the building is apparently owned by Office of Public Works.
Only the Minister can give him permission to go to Mount Street.
No one asked my permission.
The Minister has authority under the legislation.
He is there on a temporary basis. This Bill is not an Act and—
It does not stipulate location.
It would not stipulate location. I could not confine him to upper Dorset Street or whatever.
He is coming to Shannon. There is plenty of space and accommodation—
He could always go to Athlone, the centre of Ireland.
There is no airport in Athlone.
Acting Chairman
I think the Minister has clarified that.
My other point relates to leasing and that there is no provision to purchase.
No, but I do not know why that is included. I do not want it. The price of property is excessive and I am sure Office of Public Works has excess property to hold and dispose of.
Wait until the levies start rolling in.
The Senator asked me why the commission should not be allowed to purchase and the answer is that it would be expensive. Office of Public Works has property available in different areas. I will find out why—
Is it intended that it be on State property?
Yes, in the main.
Acting Chairman
I presume the Minister will come back to clarify that matter on Report Stage.
Yes.
I agree with Senator Costello. It is a valid point. While I appreciate that property is an exorbitant price, particularly in Dublin, I take the Minister's point and hope that it will be located in State-owned property. There are many State Departments in leased property which cost exorbitant sums of money annually. It would be more prudent and judicious to enter a lease purchase arrangement with a non-State operation versus paying back a loan on the purchase of a property, in the interests of the commission. The preferred option is to get State property, not necessarily property leased by Office of Public Works—
Or else prescribing that.
The Minister has the power to direct the commission regarding policy matters. This can be an area of policy under which she could give directions on purchasing and on paying back loan purchase rather than putting money down the drain in leasing premises.
It would not be prudent if the bubble bursts.
Will the provision under section 29 allow for a lease purchase?
I do not know. I will return to the Senator on that matter.
Acting Chairman
The Minister has indicated she will clarify this on Report Stage. I want to move on, please, with the co-operation of the House.
I will come back but there is no amendment on it.
Acting Chairman
There is no amendment on this section and, as the Minister has promised to clarify the matter, I would like to move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."
On a point of clarification, there are a number of airports but, as only three have a throughput of more than one million pass engers, this legislation relates only to those airports. This is clear in the Bill. Some of the other questions raised related to costs and so on and I hope the Minister will be in a position to come back with something in that regard.
As a matter of interest, I will give the numbers of passengers to the following airports last year – Knock, 198,000; Donegal, 24,000; Galway, 92,000; Kerry, 165,000; Sligo, 25,000 and Waterford 18,000. One can see that for any of those airports to arrive at one million passengers we would want to be invaded by Mars or something.
Does the Minister have the figures for the three main airports?
Yes.
Acting Chairman
I understand Cork has actually exceeded Shannon.
No. That was a false story in the newspaper designed to give me discomfort when I went to the Chamber of Commerce in Shannon – it did not give me discomfort at all.
The Minister will never get discomfort in Shannon.
I will make the figures available.
Acting Chairman
I am happy the Minister had an opportunity to clarify that.
Last year Cork Airport had 1.8 million passengers, Shannon Airport had 2.2 million and Dublin Airport had 13.5 million. For the first four months of this year, Shannon is up 19% on last year's figures. Members will recall it was 19% in the previous year. Cork is up 18% on last year's figures.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 18, subsection (1), line 16, to delete "section 34" and substitute "section 33".
Amendment agreed to.
How much longer are we spending on the Bill?
Acting Chairman
There will be a sos at 1 p.m. That is why I am anxious to move along.
I will not be here at 2 p.m.
Can we continue until 2 p.m. to try to wrap it up?
No. There is too much left and we will come to very strong matters shortly.
Acting Chairman
The Order of Business agreed by the House was that this legislation would be allowed a full day's discussion today and that a sos would take place between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.
I cannot return at 2 p.m. As far as I am aware, some other Members cannot return either.
Acting Chairman
I am bound by the order of the House.
I was told the appointed time was 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. for this Bill. I have public appointments. I would be willing to return to the House any other day. It will take two more sessions to pass the Bill.
In view of what is coming across from the Minister and Senators, since the Minister cannot be here – and we all agree that the Minister should be here – I propose that the House should adjourn at 1 p.m. and resume Committee Stage next week at a time and date to be agreed by the Whips. Is that agreed?
It is not that I cannot be here. It is obvious the Bill will require two further sessions. We are coming to very important matters on Committee Stage. After Committee Stage Report Stage should be taken in a separate session. I do not agree with having Committee and Report Stages together. Perhaps it can be arranged to have the Bill concluded next week in two separate sessions.
I fully sympathise with the Minister. Her office was obviously told that the Bill was being discussed from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. today. That is despicable. Obviously it was decided that this Bill of great substance with many amendments would only take two hours or less to be debated on Committee Stage. That is an invidious position to put the Minister in. It is wrong for the Leader to allow this scenario to arise. We appreciate the type of responses the Minister gives and the way she will react and change things on the floor. That is why we need her here. I agree to suspend this debate and to take Committee Stage next week. It would be nonsensical to continue with the remainder of this Bill with someone having to deputise for the Minister.
Who else would be here?
The Chair does not order the business of the House. That is done by the Leader and the Chair is bound by the Order of Business. Members can only change the Order of Business with the agreement of the House. Is it agreed to adjourn debate on this Bill until next week?
We are all in agreement.
I agree to it.
Acting Chairman
The proposal is agreed. Debate on this Bill will be adjourned until next week at a time to be agreed by the Whips.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
On Tuesday, 30 May at 2.30 p.m.
Acting Chairman
I thank everyone for their co-operation.
Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.