I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage with the exception of the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Each amendment must be seconded.
Aviation Regulation Bill, 2000: Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 11, after "INFORMATION" to insert "ACT".
This is a formality.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are alternatives to amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 38 is related. Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 38 may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, to delete lines 24 and 25 and substitute the following:
"‘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;".
I second the amendment.
Senators will remember on Committee Stage that we discussed these proposals. There was an equal division between Senators Taylor-Quinn, Ryan, Costello and Fitzgerald on deleting or including this matter and we did not come down on either side. However, in view of the general belief across the floor I have tabled amendment No. 4, based on Senator Fitzgerald's original amendment, which proposes to delete lines 24 and 25.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 5, to delete lines 24 and 25.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 is a Government amendment and amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 12 are cognate. Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 12 may be taken together, by agreement.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 6, line 2, to delete "95/33" and substitute" "95/93".
With all the eagle eyes of the draftsmen it was left to Kay Garvey of the union to see that the number was wrong in these places. They are purely textual amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 is related to amendment No. 6 and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"‘Regulator' means chairperson of the Commission;".
This Bill is about regulation and its objective is to introduce regulations and to appoint a regulator. However, the word "regulator" is not mentioned in the Bill even though its title is the Aviation Regulation Bill. On Committee Stage, the Minister explained in detail what was involved with regard to the commission and the equal status of its members. The chairman was there simply to bring order to the management of the commission's affairs and how it does business.
However, there is a need for a more simple or recognisable term in the Bill. While I appreciate that the chairman will bring order to the commission's daily management in terms of the people who will meet with the commission to make their cases, it is always simpler to address an issue to one individual rather than to a group. I am introducing the term in the interests of simplicity for the consumer. I hope the Minister will see her way to making it simpler to approach the commission, particularly in the context of passengers and users of the airports having recourse to the commission. The amendment might be of some assistance in this regard.
I second the amendment.
There was an extensive discussion on this matter on Committee Stage. If it is decided to enlarge the commission to three people, all would have an equal role as regulator. The term "chair" is for the purpose of business organisation but each person would be equal. That is the point of having a three person commission. There is no primus inter pares. They are all equal.
Did the Senator travel here by air?
Prices prohibit it.
The Senator should take that up with the local airport.
No. It should be taken up with the chairman of Aer Rianta.
If it is decided to enlarge the commission to three persons, each would have an equal role. A chairperson is required for good management and administration but it would be wrong to label one person as the chair in the sense of tampering with their equality.
I had expected the Minister's reply, although I had hoped she might have had some inspiration since last week and have been able to accommodate the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 7, line 19, to delete "95/33" and substitute " "95/93".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 22, to delete "95/33" and substitute ""95/93".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 29 are related to amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 29 can be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 25, after "directions" to insert "(including directions in respect of the contribution of airports to the regions in which they are located)".
This amendment includes the words "including directions in respect of the contribution of airports to the regions in which they are located". Members will remember our discussion on regional remit and various other points on Committee Stage. This is my amendment in response to that discussion.
Section 10 reads, "The Minister may give such general policy directions to the Commission as he or she considers appropriate.". My amendment No. 10 seeks to be more specific and give some focus and direction to the general policy directions referred to in the Bill. The Minister in her amendment referred to one policy direction, including directions in respect of the contribution of airports to the regions in which they are located. I support her amendment which is welcome.
The other areas to which I referred are also valuable. Paragraph (a) reads, "to foster a strong and competitive Irish airline industry by provid ing enough airport capacity". My amendment seeks to look at the impact of the aviation industry on the environment, to make the best use of existing facilities, to encourage the use and development of regional airports, which the Minister has taken on board, and to ensure the highest standards of safety in accordance with internationally accepted rules and standards. These are all areas that are desirable. My amendment seeks to indicate the categories with which the Minister will deal when considering policy matters she might consider appropriate to the commission rather than simply dealing with general policy directions.
I welcome amendment No. 9 and perhaps the Minister will refer to the other amendments. The issue of the environment is not the Minister's brief but perhaps she will discuss it, together with the other issues, with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Perhaps the issues specified could be considered appropriate matters to be considered in the context of making policy decisions.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken on board the general essence of the amendment I tabled on the previous occasion in relation to the significance of the regions when giving directions to the commission in deciding what direction to take. I appreciate that the Minister has introduced this amendment. She has not taken my amendment on board directly but the basic substance of it is now included. Perhaps for semantic purposes there is a little variation of the wording. It might not be seen as kosher to take a verbatim amendment from the Opposition. I appreciate the slight change in the wording, although the substance of the amendments is similar. This is a very important subsection, given the manner in which airports affect the economic development of a region in terms of technology, manufacturing and tourism. Shannon Airport in particular has played a hugely significant role in the development of the mid-west and, hopefully, will continue to do so in future.
I welcome the Minister's amendment on Report Stage, which corresponds with my amendment No. 29. I appreciate that she was open to the arguments put forward during the debate and has agreed to include such provision in the Bill.
Senator Taylor-Quinn is correct. It is not that I would not table her amendment – that is the way the draftsmen operate.
Are there any draftswomen?
It is more or less a direct translation of the Senator's amendment and I was glad that the regional remit could be so included. Senator Costello also said he was glad the regional remit was included.
The suggested policy issues set out in Senator Costello's amendment are contained in section 33. The environmental and planning issues are outside my remit and I can do nothing in that regard. It would be incorrect for me to seek a role in that area. I recognise they were put down in terms of attending to business in a comprehensive way, but they are not my business. However, the failure to include a regional remit in the original Bill was a shortcoming and I am glad we have remedied it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 12, line 11, to delete "95/33" and substitute "95/93".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 is consequential on amendment No. 14 and they may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 12, line 23, to delete "spouse;" and substitute "spouse.".
This is a gem. It is a technical, draftsman's amendment. As a result of another amendment there should be a full stop rather than a semi-colon after "spouse".
Amendment No. 14 proposes in page 12 to delete lines 24 to 29. This provision was taken by the draftsman in error from precedent in the Food Safety Authority Act but is not required in this Bill. Senator Ryan raised this matter on Committee Stage and I said we would examine it.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 12, to delete lines 24 to 29.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 13, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(c)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.
I tabled this amendment again as it concerns a very serious matter. It relates to a conflict of interest and it is extremely important where a member of the commission, the staff of the commission or a member of their household is in the process of acquiring land or property to which such a matter relates.
I raise this from experience as a public representative on a local authority where matters can be considered in relation to properties of which people who are not necessarily the registered owners intend to become the registered owners if a certain occurrence or development takes place. Where people are actively pursuing the acquisition of property while parallel to that another development is being proposed or processed, under the law as it stands there is no conflict of interest but in reality there is. While one can say that there is no conflict of interest because the individual concerned is not the registered owner of the property, in reality he or she will become the registered owner if a certain development proceeds. In such a case there is an onus on those involved to declare their interest in the property.
I urge the Minister to include the paragraph proposed in the Bill. The matter has arisen in other areas and may arise in this instance. The Minister would avoid any such conflict of interest by accepting the amendment. Given her long experience of public life at local and national level she appreciates where I am coming from and the value of what is being said about the need to include the paragraph proposed.
I second the amendment which is valuable. On Committee Stage the Minister said it would be very difficult to tie down an amendment which contains the words, "a member of the household is considering". An amendment containing the words "is in the process of acquiring land or property" is, however, much more specific. A person who has initiated a process of acquisition stands to benefit from a decision that may be taken by the commission. Unless it is covered elsewhere in the Bill to our satisfaction it appears the matter has been overlooked by the Minister. In providing for the disclosure of interests it is proper to provide for the disclosure of interests that are in the process of being acquired. I urge the Minister to consider accepting this worthwhile amendment.
This is not in order, but I wish to advise the House that I would be more than prepared to leave out the words "is considering".
Unfortunately, it is not in order to omit words on the floor of the House. One has to submit another amendment. One cannot legislate for what is in a person's mind.
I am prepared to cross them out.
If one was living in outer Bolivia one would not have thought police to police what is in a person's mind. There is nothing I can do about the matter. I cannot legislate for what might be in a person's head.
In my anxiety to retable the amendments there was a slight oversight. I did not have the benefit of the expertise and professional back-up available to the Minister. I had to do it singlehandedly. It was my intention to leave out the words "is considering". The amendment would then read, "he or she or any member of his or her household—
We must deal with the amendment as tabled.
—is in the process of acquiring land or property to which such a matter relates." Can the amendment be adjusted on Fifth Stage?
No.
It can be dealt with in the Dáil.
It can be dealt with in the other House.
Will the Minister be in a position to accept the substance of the amendment in the Lower House? It has not been tabled lightly, rather it is an important amendment. I have direct experience of this matter. On making further inquiries the bland answer was that at the time the person concerned was not the registered owner of the land. Technically speaking, at the time the person involved did not have an interest in the land and did not have to declare an interest. However, that person was actively interested in promoting the land for a particular development and there was a conflict of interest. However, technically under the law there was no such conflict.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 18, line 5, to delete "persons" and substitute "passengers".
This amendment arose from a suggestion by Senator Moylan who was not keen to table an amendment. However, this is a relevant amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 is cognate on amendment No. 17 so these amendments may be taken together.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 18, line 19, after "day" to insert "and at the end of each succeeding period of 5 years".
This amendment arose from Senator Ryan's comments regarding the determi nation, time and such issues. We are inserting the provision regarding every five years as it seemed during the previous discussion on the section that the Bill required some amendment. I am trying to acknowledge the Senators whose suggestions brought about changes to the Bill.
Amendment No. 31 follows from this amendment. This is a drafting matter and a determination will be made every five years.
I thank the Minister for acknowledging Senator Ryan's contribution and I will forward her compliments to the Senator.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 18, 34 and 36 are related and may be taken together.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 18, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(4)Where it appears to the Commission that two or more airports are either–
(a)managed by the same airport authority, or
(b)that they are owned by the same person and operate as a group of airports whose activities are co-ordinated by that person,
any determination in relation to any one of those airports may be made by reference to the aggregate of amounts levied by way of airport charges at that airport and amounts so levied at the other airport.".
This amendment, in conjunction with the earlier amendment on the regional remit and a later amendment, was the subject of most debate during the previous discussion on the Bill. This amendment is based on the debate in the House, as are amendments Nos. 34 and 36. This amendment is similar to those tabled by Senators Taylor-Quinn and O'Dowd. It is a matter of the unity of ownership of the airports and treating them as a group. I ask Senators to accept that amendment No. 18 is an attempt to mirror the thrust of amendments Nos. 34 and 36 and of the debate in the House.
I welcome this amendment. This is an important section of the Bill and the Minister has adequately taken our concerns on board.
I welcome this amendment because this is one of the most important sections of the Bill, particularly regarding the operation of Irish airports. It is very important that freedom is given to the regulator to allow him or her to pull together the aggregate of all the airports so the company is in a position to impose the appropriate levy in the interests of sustainability and equitable development. This amendment will strengthen the Bill. It enhances the role of the regulator and gives the regulator more discretion in terms of balanced judgments and determinations as to how airports proceed. I am delighted the Minister listened to the arguments put forward and commend her for introducing this amendment.
I welcome this amendment which is consistent with the thrust and principle of amendment No. 21 which I tabled on Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 18, line 36, to delete "otherwise," and substitute "otherwise, or".
This is a technical amendment resulting from a previous amendment to this section.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 32 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 19, to delete lines 41 to 43 and substitute the following:
"(b)An amendment made under paragraph (a) shall be in force for the remainder of the period of determination referred to in subsection (4)(a).”.
In view of the queries raised during the previous debate on the Bill regarding the review and amended determinations, it was decided to clarify these issues in the Bill. We had a long debate regarding how long an amended determination remains in force. An amended determination remains in force until the end of the original five year period. If anyone wishes to see how a good debate can change a Bill they should take this Bill as an example. When the Bill was initiated everyone agreed it had to be clarified and Senator Ryan tabled an amendment in this regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 is cognate on amendment No. 21 and these amendments may be taken together.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 20, line 10, to delete "a necessary" and substitute "the".
These amendments arose from Senator Liam Fitzgerald's amendments. I am proposing to delete "a necessary" and substitute "the". It can be taken as implicit that any investment in infrastructure and so on will be necessary and, therefore, in line with provisions. However, if one took a narrow interpretation of "necessary", an airline could argue there should only be necessary improvements in the mean sense. This reflects Senator Liam Fitzgerald's amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 27 are cognate on amendment No. 22. These amendments may be taken together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 20, line 17, to delete "an" and substitute "the".
These are technical amendments which are consequential on each other.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 20, line 20, to delete "an" and substitute "the".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 20, line 23, to delete "an" and substitute "the".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 20, line 25, to delete "an" and substitute "the".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 26 and 28 are consequential on amendment No. 30. These amendments may be taken together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 20, line 27, to delete "and".
Are amendments Nos. 26 and 28 being taken together?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 26, 28 and 30 are being taken together.
It is proposed to provide for imposing the minimum restrictions on the airport authority consistent with the functions of the commission and such international obligations as are relevant. That was the wording of an amendment tabled by Senator Liam Fitzgerald on Committee Stage.
Amendment No. 30 is in response to amendments to the section tabled on Committee Stage. We propose to add two new provisions to the regulatory objectives in the section. One relates to international obligations which we considered we should include and the other relates to imposing the minimum restrictions on the airport authority consistent with the functions of the commission.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 20, line 29, to delete "an" and substitute "the".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 20, line 30, to delete "practice." and to insert "practice,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 20, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
(h) imposing the minimum restrictions on the airport authority consistent with the functions of the Commission, and
(i) such international obligations as are relevant to its functions.”.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment agreed?
As a matter of clarification—
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Under Standing Orders—
As a matter of clarification, the Minister completed her contribution and then the Chair spoke, but I want to speak on this amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator did not indicate that to me. Is the amendment agreed? It is a Government amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask Members for their attention in dealing with this legislation.
It would be appreciated if the Chair did not gallop so fast through the amendments. I wanted to speak on the last amendment. We should be clear about the situation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are proceeding with due speed and caution.
With less caution and more speed.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 20, line 37, after "day" to insert "and at the end of each succeeding period of five years".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 22, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
(b) An amendment made under paragraph (a) shall be in force for the remainder of the period of the determination referred to in subsection (3)(a).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 22, line 28, to delete "a necessary" and substitute "the".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 37 is related to amendment No. 35 and they may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 23, before line 1, to insert the following:
"38.–(1) The persons specified in subsection (2) may appeal to the High Court against a determination or an amendment to a determination made by the Commission pursuant to section 32 or section 35, either in whole or in respect of one or more parts thereof, or a request for information made by the Commission pursuant to section 32 or section 35, either in whole or in respect of one or more parts, and the High Court may confirm or modify the determination or amendment or request for information either in whole or in respect of one or more parts making any consequential amendments to the determination or amendment to a determination or a request for information, as the High Court may think fit, or prohibit the Commission from implementing either in whole or in respect of one or more parts thereof, the determination or amendment to a determination or request for information.
(2) The following persons shall be entitled to take an appeal referred to in subsection (1) above:
(a) an airport authority, in respect of a determination pursuant to section 32(2), or in respect of an amendment to a determination pursuant to section 32(13), or in respect of a request pursuant to section 32(12);
(b) a person subject to airport charges, in respect of a determination pursuant to section 32(2) or in respect of an amendment to a determination pursuant to section 32(13);
(c) the Authority in respect of a determination pursuant to section 35(2) or in respect of an amendment to a determination pursuant to section 35(12) or in respect of a request pursuant to section 35(11); and
(d) a person subject to airport terminal services charges, in respect of a determination pursuant to section 35(2) or in respect of an amendment to a determination pursuant to section 35(12).(3) A person entitled to take an appeal pursuant to subsection (2) above shall take any such appeal within the following periods:
(a) in respect of persons referred to in subsection (2)(a) above, the period of 28 days following the date of receipt of notice pursuant to section 32(10) or the date of receipt of a request pursuant to section 32(12), as the case may be;
(b) in respect of persons referred to in subsection (2)(b) above, the period of 28 days following the date of publication of the notice referred to in section 32(10)(a);
(c) in respect of persons referred to in subsection (2)(c) above, the period of 28 days following the date of receipt of notice pursuant to section 35(9)(a) or the date of receipt of a request pursuant to section 35(11); and
(d) in respect of persons referred to in subsection (2)(d) above, the period of 28 days following the date of publication of the notice referred to in section 35(9)(a).(4) Notwithstanding an appeal under subsection (1) above by a person specified in subsection (2) and within the time specified in subsection (3), the appeal shall not affect the validity of the determination or amendment to a determination, and its operation unless, upon an application to the High Court, that Court suspends the determination or amendment to a determination until the appeal is determined or withdrawn.
(5) The hearing by the High Court shall be a hearing on the merits of the case and the parties shall be entitled to introduce all relevant matters whether or not those matters were presented to the Commission in relation to its determination, amendment or request.".
This amendment was tabled on Committee Stage because of a strong belief in the need for an appeal process or a system under which air passengers or airport users can have a right of appeal. We discussed at length on Committee Stage a person's right to appeal a case to the High Court. People have a constitutional right to take a case to court and they should not be prohibited from doing so. The Minister made a strong argument that providing for such an appeal process would mean the courts would become the regulator. One could say that the courts could become the regulator or the adjudicator on every issue that arises. Surely people have a right of appeal. I appreciate that in many instances companies, rather than individual air passengers, may appeal under this legislation.
A right to an appeal under the legislation applies only to a judicial review, which is a rare and unusual process. It is not used by many people and certainly not by those with limited finances. It is unsatisfactory to strictly confine the appeal mechanism available to a judicial review. It is necessary to have an appeal mechanism separate from a judicial review. What is proposed in this amendment may not be perfect. When the Minister takes this Bill in the Lower House, I hope she will be in a position to reconsider this matter. Seeking a judicial review is not as straightforward as one might think, rather it is a very expensive, lengthy and laborious process that can continue for years.
A man from Limerick got one.
That was a rarity. I know of another judicial review that was taken by a person in my constituency in relation to the Loran C mast on Loop Heap that continued for five years.
Cases differ and companies could collapse during the process, not to mention individuals not having a right of appeal. A provision to provide such a right of appeal separate from a judicial review should be inserted in the Bill. This amendment may not be the answer. However, it highlights the need for an appeal system separate from a judicial review. One could proceed and provide for the insertion of this new section thereby providing people with a right of appeal to the High Court.
People should not be prevented from taking a case to court. We all have that constitutional right, if we wish to avail of it. If one deems that there is a case to be heard one should have the freedom to take the case to court. Restricting the right of appeal to judicial review is not necessarily the correct measure. When the Minister takes the Bill in the other House she might arrange for a group in her Department, a cross-departmental group or an independent group to consider this matter.
If one is refused unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit or a medical card, one has a right to appeal that decision. An individual right to such an appeal is probably different from a corporate right of appeal. We are not dealing only with companies here but air passengers and airport users in the broadest sense. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment or to give an assurance that she will accept the general thrust of the arguments put forward and reconsider this matter when the Bill goes to the Dáil.
I second the amendment.
When the Bill goes to the Dáil, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the serious issue raised by Senator Taylor-Quinn, which we raised on Committee Stage.
I thank the Senators for tabling this amendment. We discussed this matter on Committee Stage last week, although Senator Ryan did not agree with the proposal.
He did not.
His views were well founded in his mind.
I have sympathy with the proposal. If one cannot afford to pay one's water rates, one can appeal such a claim to the appropriate official in a county council. There is an appeal system in place for most measures, although I often wonder how successful people are in making appeals, particularly when an applicant is disallowed a medical card. Such appeals are supposed to be considered by the chief executive officer of the relevant health board, but I wonder if they are passed to the chief executive officer or whether the same administration deals with them.
The Bill, as it stands, provides for three commissioners, robust consultation, the regulatory process options for a judicial review and after two years the regulator can intervene on his initiative or if an airline requests it. A basic thrust of decency underpinned the debate on Committee Stage. The Attorney General's office has said no to this proposal.
That is because we have a right wing conservative Attorney General.
No, we have a very good Attorney General who is proactive.
He is ultra right.
He is very proactive, a good person and I would trust him with my life.
A former blueshirt.
He is a very good Attorney General.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Taylor-Quinn, please desist.
We are not going into the political—
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Taylor-Quinn is out of order.
As requested by Senators, I undertake to reflect on this matter between now and Committee Stage in the other House.
Is the amendment being pressed?
In view of the Minister's response, which I appreciate, and given her response on Committee Stage to the various amendments put forward, I take her word that she will have another look at this issue before it goes to the Dáil. For that reason I shall withdraw the amendment.
I undertake to have it reviewed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 25, lines 29 and 30, to delete "an airport user" and substitute "any person responsible for the carriage of passengers, mail or freight by air to or from an airport.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 26, line 47, after "regulations." to insert "Such regulations shall not be made earlier than one month prior to the commencement of civil aviation operations at the relevant aerodrome.".
I consider this an important amendment. It is something most people would not notice and it would not appear relevant because what is being proposed here is an enabling section to the Bill which would allow the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Defence, to license and regulate a military airport, and Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, is the obvious one. Unfortunately the flight path of Baldonnel is in close proximity to the proposed 45,000 seat Eircom football stadium which is before South Dublin County Council for planning permission. The concern is that regulations could be made and a licence could be given now on a hypothetical basis that at some time in the future Baldonnel would become a commercial airport. These regulations might prescribe some matters in relation to aeronautical safety standards at the aerodrome that might or might not be different from what is required for a military airport. The Air Corps at Baldonnel has stated there is no problem whatsoever with its flight paths in relation to the new Eircom park that is planned.
It has said that.
It said that after the Minister for Defence had said no for over 12 months. The Minister for Defence objected to the planned application which the FAI has submitted to—
South Dublin County Council.
—South Dublin County Council. Part of the objection was that it would interfere with the operations of the aerodrome. When the Air Corps made its submission it suggested that there were no problems with any of its activities in relation to the flight path. In respect of military matters, there was no problem, good, bad or indifferent. The Minister is proposing to enable herself and the Minister for Defence to make new regulations in respect of commercial activities in Baldonnel. This would happen obviously sometime in the future. The Minister for Defence could say to the Minister that he wished to see Baldonnel expanded and become a commercial airport and to have regulations put in place in regard to air safety standards or whatever, and the process would begin.
While the planning permission is going through, the county council would have to wait and see whether it would have a prohibitive effect on the planning application. Obviously, if regulations were being discussed, it would have to wait for them. That would mean the stadium could not go ahead. The problem with the enabling legislation is that we could create a hypothetical situation where sometime in the future, Baldonnel might become a commercial airport. We do not know whether it will, but certainly a great deal of investment would be required before that would happen. It could not happen overnight, it may be years down the road. If the process of regulation began and the Minister for Defence was to seek it, it could mean that the planning application would be held up indeterminately.
The focus of this amendment is that regulations should not be made earlier than one month prior to the commencement of operations, in other words that regulations cannot be made now on the hypothetical basis that at some future date the airport will become a commercial one.
They would be needed a month beforehand.
Before there is a firm decision of a commercial basis at the airport. The timeframe of a month appears short and it could be some what wider. The Minister for Defence has already opposed Eircom park.
I did not know that.
The FAI is concerned that this can be used again to oppose the planning proposals. This is something I would put to a vote if we were to do that. Perhaps there is some more work the Minister can do to get assurances from the Minister for Defence. It is seen as a potential delaying mechanism which could put the future of Eircom park up in the air, so to speak.
I formally second Senator Costello's amendment. The essence of what he said is wise. The differences between military and commercial aviation demands are considerable. Military aviation tactics and usage vary dramatically both in the type of aircraft used and the manoeuvres engaged in versus clear commercial activity. What Senator Costello said in regard to reducing the timeframe within which regulations can be made by the Department is highly commendable. We all know developments take place quickly and changing circumstances change the direction of situations overnight. To give directions at a time when nothing may happen for years, or even decades, would be unwise. What the Senator has said is commendable. If this were to proceed as it stands, it could restrict development in that part of Dublin and that would not be wise. The amendment deserves support.
I support the moderate tone in which Senator Costello has put forward his views. I will not repeat what has been said. The Minister's intention is that this Bill should last a long time and that it will be secure. He put forward what he believes to be a problem if the changes occur and the Bill is not ready. I urge the Minister to reconsider whether there is some way in which she can put his mind at rest to overcome the problems he forecasts.
I thank the Senators who contributed on this matter. I was aware that the FAI – Bernard O'Byrne – is the source of the amendment. It was in contact with my office in my absence. However, the matter is outside my remit. The FAI is concerned that the Department of Defence will use section 46 – which amends the IAA Act to allow for the IAA to have civil jurisdiction over military aerodromes if the need arises – as a delaying tactic to oppose the FAI's plans to build a stadium at City West. They are concerned that any IAA role at Baldonnel would jeopardise their plans for the stadium. I think it only came in yesterday or the day before.
Yes. I think they were talking to the Minister's Department yesterday.
It was in the last day or so, yes. The amendment is relatively new to me, although I can grasp the concept. I cannot accept it now but I will undertake to speak to the FAI to see if there is some way their fears can be allayed, even though the powers concerning that lie within the Department of Defence and the Minister for Defence. From what I can gather, the FAI sees in this section 46 a way of ensuring the right of the Department of Defence to underpin its already stated objection to the park. Is that correct?
That is correct.
I have only gathered that from the debate on the floor of the House, as distinct from what I found out previously. I will undertake to speak with my colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, and also with the FAI to see if I can achieve a better grasp of the issue and if it can be accommodated in some way by deletion or amendment in the Lower House. I have been alerted to the matter now.
I thank the Minister for her very reasonable response. The track record will show that the Department of Defence has endeavoured to obstruct the application. It is a pity that a Bill, which is trying to ensure that military airports can be developed on a commercial basis also, should be used to defeat the thrust of what is being done by the FAI. It can be invidious to raise the statements or actions of one Minister in the presence of another Minister in this House. However, if the Minister is prepared to speak to the FAI's chief executive, Mr. Bernard O'Byrne, to tease out the association's concerns about it, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
I thank the Senator.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 27, line 1, after "amended" to insert "in paragraph 1(2) of the First Schedule, by the addition of ‘the Commission for Aviation Regulation' ".
Perhaps the Minister could address that issue. I understand that it is already being dealt with.
I second the amendment.
Yes, Senator Ryan dealt with it. In September, the Department of Finance is coming out with its new list.
Under the Freedom of Information Act?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, for the courtesy you have shown both to me and my officials. The Bill has been greatly changed, strengthened and improved by the input from all sides of the House, including our own party, Fianna Fáil, Labour and Fine Gael as well as the contributions of Senator Quinn on Second Stage and today. It is amazing what such a debate can achieve in providing knowledge to a Minister. I particularly liked the way in which people were prepared to meet one another half way if the idea was a good one. In tabling the Government amendments today, I tried to reflect the views of those who had tabled amendments earlier in the debate.
I also wish to thank my officials who put up with hell from me – not in a nasty sense but in a bothersome sense – and remained placid and good natured about it all. We had some interesting debates ourselves as we worked through the legislation. I wish to thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, and your staff.
I thank the Minister for initiating the Bill in the House. She has increased the relevance of the Seanad by so doing. I also thank her for the openness with which she has taken the legislation through the House. She was very open in debating the broad issues on Second Stage. Later, on Committee Stage, she accepted many amendments which is a credit to her and an example to her colleagues in Government. Suggestions coming from the Opposition are not necessarily always made just for the sake of opposition. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has accepted a number of amendments. I particularly commend her acceptance of two amendments, one which takes into consideration regional aspects when making assessments, and the other which takes into account the aggregate amount in assessing charges. A new section had to be created to deal with the latter amendment. Those amendments were influential in generally improving the Bill.
I also thank the Minister for agreeing to consider certain aspects of appeals and the possibility of conflicts of interest. It shows great openness and a maturity in politics that we could do with more of. I hope that people in Shannon in particular, and in Clare in general, will be pleased with what the Minister has done. We will make sure they are made aware of the fact that she came to the House with an open mind.
I commend the Minister for the manner in which she has piloted the Bill through the House, if that is the correct term. She listened to a very broad ranging debate with great openness and argued her case cogently. At no time did she cut down any of the amendments that were tabled. I was delighted to share with my colleagues in putting forward views about amendments we felt were important. I am happy at the way the Minister dealt with Report Stage. She tried to accept views put forward in the best interests of what the regulator's office was set up to achieve. The Minister has set an important headline with this legislation, which I hope will be followed by many other Ministers. I thank her for initiating the Bill here, which certainly enhances the status of the House and underlines its relevance.
I also thank the Minister's officials whom I have found to be highly professional in my dealings with them. I commend them for their professionalism and the courtesy they showed at all times in clarifying matters for me. The Dáil will benefit from the exchanges that took place during this debate when it comes to consider the Bill.
I thank the Minister on my behalf and on behalf of Senator Ryan who handled the debate for my party on Committee Stage when he made some useful suggestions. In particular, I wish to thank the Minister for the manner in which she deals with amendments. She was prepared to tease out matters on the floor of the House and that is welcome because it gives us the impression that we are not just rubber stamping legislation but are participating in the legislative process. I thank the Minister's officials with whom I have had dealings. They have been extremely courteous.
I am delighted to see Senator Glennon attending the debate on his first day in the House. He will be impressed by the words that have been used at the end of the debate. He will not be surprised that the Minister has taken this Bill in her usual professional manner. I remember that when I first entered the House the Minister took the Unfair Dismissals Act, which was a Seanad Bill, and accepted amendments in the same manner as she did today. I agree with Senator Liam Fitzgerald who said she piloted this aviation Bill very well. The Minister is to be congratulated for showing her strength of confidence by listening to the contributions and accepting amendments. I also congratulate her officials.
I wish the Senator a happy birthday, which was last Wednesday, the same day as mine.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister is straying out of order. I join with Senator Quinn in welcoming Senator Glennon to the House.
I also welcome Senator Glennon.
Question put and agreed to.