Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 45 are related. I suggest, therefore, that amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 45 be debated together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 10, lines 32 to 34, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act (other than this section and section 68) shall not apply to state aircraft or to aerodromes under the control of the Minister for Defence.".
Section 3 governs the circumstances in which the Bill will apply to State aircraft — that is, military, police, and customs aircraft. Section 68 provides for the designation of areas of airspace for use by the Defence Forces. This amendment is intended to ensure that although the Bill as a whole does not apply to State aircraft these two sections will apply to them. No change in substance has been made in the present position. The amendment is purely to improve the drafting.
The purpose of the amendment is very specific. It is to insert the term "aircraft of the Defence Forces" as a substitute for the term "military aircraft". This provision shall not apply to State aircraft or to aerodromes under the control of the Minister for Defence.
As it happens, on Sunday last in Baldonnel an air show was held. It was very well run and most enjoyable. During the course of that show there were military aircraft being operated in an aerodrome under the control of the Minister for Defence which were not aircraft of the Defence Forces — there were Swedish, German, Dutch and French military aircraft. What would be the status of and responsibility for those aircraft if the amendment the Minister is proposing was made? It seems that the Minister's proposed amendment would remove the possibility of applying the same rules to those aircraft.
They had to have special permission to perform there, and part of that permission included their having to comply with civil rules when flying through our air space and with our military rules when flying in the air space of the Department of Defence, where they were actually performing.
Was the area controlled by the Department of Defence extended on that occasion?
That is a technical question. We would have to get that information for the Deputy. I did not have the pleasure of attending but I did see the show on television and it looked very good.
It was extended——
I am informed it was.
May I seek clarification on this because the most prominent facility that this section deals with is Baldonnel? There is great concern among the settled community in the catchment area of Baldonnel that the same safety guidelines as apply to civil aerodromes do not apply to the training and other activities of the Air Corps. It is more serious now that Clondalkin and west Tallaght areas are expanding towards Baldonnel. The operation of a military airfield is suitable for an area where there is no residential growth and very little activity because of the type of activity and training there. For example, approaches to runways with a red zone which is applicable to civil aviation should be enforced in Baldonnel. The training activity, with its attendant risks, and the facilities that the Department of Defence and the Air Corps have are of serious concern to local residents and should be addressed. It appears that this is a very wide power. While one never wants to threaten the security of the State and not allow the Air Corps to have the maximum flexibility in flying and so on, in the interests of public safety it should be operating to international civil aviation regulations.
I represent that area and what Deputy Lawlor said is true. It has become more of an issue recently. In fact, there have been meetings of resident's associations specifically on this point and on the scope and future development of Baldonnel. It was provoked at a time when the inter-departmental committee was considering the future of Baldonnel and whether its mandate, so to speak, would be restricted to what it was then. I do not know whether that inter-departmental committee died with the previous Government or whether it ever reported. I would be interested, as Deputy Lawlor said, to hear the Minister's comments on this issue.
I understand the concerns of Deputies Rabbitte and Lawlor. Similar points have been made from time to time about another aerodrome not covered by the provisions of this section. I find it rather perverse that, for example, planning authorities which know of the existence of a facility such as this give permission for developments, particularly residential developments, that are going to be more affected by these operations than anybody there at the moment. It seems rather perverse to come afterwards and try to put restrictions on the operation of these facilities because of developments that have been knowingly planned and allowed to proceed, that are going to be difficult for the people involved, both for the operators of the facility and the people living in the houses. For example, in the Lucan and Leixlip areas there have been frequent outbursts of complaints from people who move out there, buy new houses and after their first summer living in the new house, when private training activity tends to be at its peak, complain because aeroplanes are flying around on the long summer evenings until about 9 or 10 o'clock at night.
It is entirely disingenous of planning authorities to allow that development to take place when they know that this kind of activity is an integral part of the operation of the facility. That applies to Baldonnel in the same way that it applies to Leixlip and, to widen the net further, it applies to people who build houses within a mile or two down-wind of a large pig unit. I would hate to see a move further to compound the injustice and inconvenience that is being caused to people by bad planning of this type.
In regard to the training of Defence Forces personnel in the flying of aircraft, it has, as my colleagues, particularly Deputies Rabbitte and Lawlor have said, been a source of serious concern for communities in large residential areas in south-west Dublin. Generally speaking, when they made their representations to the people in charge at Baldonnel they got rather short shift and were told: "that is the way it is and that is the way it will remain". They got a very unsympathetic hearing. People who are faced with the continuing flying of aircraft over residential areas find it very hard to understand why it should always be the case and why what is obviously very essential training does not take place over areas that are not build up or are close to the sea. Will the Minister arrange to take this issue up with his colleague, the Minister for Defence? This is the time to raise this issue.
Second, with regard to planning and development adjacent to airports or aerodromes, it has been shown that the general sweep of the planning authority has been to interfere with proposed planning and development far beyond what was shown to be necessary in regard to the safety of aircraft operations. For many years the planning authority excluded developments in Baldonnel because of what they referred to as the red zone. I note from a recent examination of the South Dublin Development Plan that the red zone has been changed dramatically and reduced which, obviously, has released an amount of potential development land in that part of County Dublin.
For the past number of years householders, farmers, and so on could not build a house in the former red zone area but that has changed, a change I cannot understand after it being sacrosanct for so long. I call the Minister's attention to the access routes to aerodromes and airports which need to be looked at in the interest of fairness and, of course, of the safety of the aircraft using them.
Lest there be misrepresentation of the point I was making — Deputy Dukes has commented on it — on the advancing technology and safety; the Naas dual carriageway is used by a new high type of truck and the Air Corps has intensified its activities with night training, the introduction of the whole range of helicopters and so on. That activity in Baldonnel is having an impact even quite some distance away. Therefore, it is not a question of trying to lock the stable door — this airfield was operating before houses were built in the vicinity. Likewise, Weston is an issue in Lucan. My point arises not from the complaints by people residing in the area but from the point of view of public safety. The guidelines should operate not in any way to inhibit the operation of Baldonnel but on a public safety basis. The sweep-all arrangement that prevails is a matter of concern. A 40 ft. container passing on the Naas dual carriageway is in the approaching flight path of the Baldonnel air strip. There are other limitations. When Aer Lingus wanted to develop a big jet engine testing facility, flexibility could be introduced and all the guidelines that were there were set aside and it was set up with a number of other industries associated with Aer Lingus in the old Potez plant. I am making the point for public safety.
Many points have been raised about this issue. Aircraft at all times must conform to the rules of the air. The question of housing close to airports and aerodromes is obviously primarily a matter for local authorities. ANSO has and consistently advises against construction in approach zones to runways of all airports, both State and private aerodromes and airports. In another Department in which I worked, representations were made when the State had objected to a community facility being built in a key flight path in the Baldonnel area. We have an excellent record in the Air Corps and very excellent, qualified and proficient people working there and operating military aircraft for the State. We should be very proud of them. All of the points regarding Baldonnel are a matter for the Minister for Defence and do not arise in the context of this Bill. I will refer them to the Minister and, perhaps, Deputies might take them up with him.
The question of an inter-departmental committee was raised. The air space rules and structures are being examined. This examination will not impinge on the Air Corps operations. ANSO and the Department of Defence are carrying out this examination and we hope it will be concluded some time later this year.
Section 3 (2) states that the term "military aircraft" would apply to all military aircraft, whether controlled by the Irish State or otherwise. The amendment refers to aircraft of the Defence Forces which seems to confine it to domestic aircraft. From subsections (4) and (5) it is clear that a State aircraft is defined as an aircraft of any State used under military, customs or police service of that State.
We all know that some of the 200,000 flights across Irish airspace do not land in Ireland and that some of them are military aircraft. Will the Irish Aviation Authority be responsible for the air traffic control of these aircraft and the safety regulations which control the flight of aircraft under the terms of the Act or will that be the function of the Minister for Defence?
Second, subsection (3) envisages a situation where there would be Garda aircraft or Garda helicopters and also aircraft under the control of the customs service and it envisages a regulatory process for aircraft under customs and police control. Does that mean the Garda and the customs service or the police service and the customs services of other States? To what extent does the Bill apply to the services from other States in Irish territorial waters, for example, and to what extent does the Minister envisage it applying to a helicopter squad in the Garda, the establishment of which was again proposed recently?
Deputy Noonan's questions are similar to some of the questions I asked in the briefing about overflights by military aircraft, other than Irish. Are they a matter for the Minister for Defence? I had not noted that the definition of State aircraft meant the aircraft of any State. In another regard the question of nuclear capacity arises from time to time. In regard to shipping there is a strange procedure whereby even if we ask the American naval authority they will not tell us what is on board. I do not know whether this issue arises. Do we have any analysis of the nature of the military aircraft that uses our air space? It is my understanding that the Department of Foreign Affairs was involved in some of the responses in relation to ships. Does the Department of Foreign Affairs have any role to play in regard to matters referred to in the Bill or are they a matter entirely for the Department of Defence and, if so, should there be a reference to the Department in the Bill.
Will the Minister have any responsibility under this legislation with regard to the type of cargo found in aircraft from other countries flying through our air space? I have in mind dangerous cargo such as nuclear equipment and military equipment.
In response to Deputy Noonan's question, about all aircraft, military and otherwise, flying through Irish airspace, the Irish Aviation Authority will be responsible for all aircraft, apart from Defence Forces aircraft.
It is clear from the Minister's response that the Irish Aviation Authority will be responsible for the air traffic control of all aircraft.
That is right.
Does the same apply to the safety of all aircraft? Is the second function of the Irish Aviation Authority the safety of all aircraft?
They are certified airworthy and operationally correct by their own contries and, consequently, when that ceertification is issued they are entitled to fly; our duty is to guide them through.
It appears we cannot inquire into the certificate of airworthiness and we cannot inquire into the the nature of the cargo they carry. Is that correct?
Basically, yes. In international airspace foreign military or State aircraft, armed or otherwise, are free to fly in compliance with civil rules. For some exceptional reason, for example, operational exercises, the State concerned can arrange for airspace sectors in international airspace to be reserved solely for their military aircraft. Entry to Irish sovereign airspace by foreign military or State aircraft is not permitted unless in an emergency without the permission of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Military or State aircraft can include civil aircraft being used in connection with military or State business. Details of the proposed flights must be given, together with details of personnel and cargoes being carried and of any stops the aircraft proposes to make en route.
Is there a permanent arrangement between ourselves and the United States Government to fly military aircraft through our air space?
No.
It is on a case by case basis.
Absolutely, on an individual basis.
Should those arrangements not be included in this Bill, In what legislation are provisions contained for occasional applications to the Department of Foreign Affairs by military aircraft to fly through our air space?
These arrangements come under the convention on international civil aviation, the Chicago Convention. Aircraft used on military, customs and police services shall be deemed to be State aircraft. The point raised by Deputy Noonan about Irish police aircraft and so on is included in the Bill. The convention states that no State aircraft of a contracting State — that is a contracting State to the converntion — shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without the authorisation or special agreement or otherwise and in accordance with the terms thereof. No munitions of war or implements of war may be carried in or above the territory of a State in aircraft engaged in international navigation except by permission of such State. It continues that each State shall determine by regulations what constitutes munitions of war or implements of war, for the purposes of this Article, giving due consideration for the purpose of uniformity to such recommendations as the international civil aviation organisation may, from time to time, make. Each contracting State reserves the right, for reasons of public order and safety, to regulate or prohibit the carriage in or above its territory of articles other than those enumerated in paragraph A of the convention provided that no distinction is made in this respect between its national aircraft engaged in international navigation and the aircraft of other States so engaged and provided further that no restriction shall be imposed which may interfere with the carriage and use in aircraft of apparatus necessary for the operation or navigation of the aircraft or the safety of the personnel or passengers.
Why are certain elements of the convention given legislative effect and others are not? Are those issues not included in the 1946 Act? In the context of visiting ships with nuclear capacity the attitude of American forces when asked about nuclear capability was simply not to answer. These are areas of concern to the Irish people and legislation should apply to them. Is this not a gap that should be filled?
Is there any provision in the Bill for dealing with disagreements or disputes about the safety aspect of aircraft?
In response to Deputy Flaherty, section 8 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, states:
The Chicago Convention shall come into operation in the State on such day as the Minister may by order fix (which said order the Minister is hereby authorised to make).
Section 9 states:
The Minister may from time to time make such orders as appear to him necessary or expedient for carrying out the Chicago Convention and for giving effect thereto or to any of the provisions thereof and every such order shall have the force of law in the State.
In reply to Deputy McCormack, the Bill covers all aspects apart from the one we are discussing.
The Minister confirmed the existence of an interdepartmental committee. Is that committee still sitting and, if so, when is it expected to report?
The committee consists of ANSO and the Department of Defence — the Air Corps. It is expected to report by August. The committee is dealing with and discussing airspace which is very important to Ireland. It will be more important in the future with the advance in technology and the passing of this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 10, subsection (2), line 36, to delete "military aircraft" and substitute "aircraft of the Defence Forces".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, subsection (3) line 40, after "purposes", to insert "of the State".
This amendment clarifies the point made earlier by Deputy Noonan.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, line 3, to delete "of" and substitute "or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 11, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Nothing in this Act or any order or other instrument made thereunder, shall prejudice or affect the functions of the Irish Meteorological Service, as these stood at the time of its enactment.".
As well as their air traffic control function ANSO supply on behalf of the Irish meteorological organisation information about the weather an aircraft is likely to encounter en route. They also collect charges which are transferred subsequently to the Met organisation.
Amendment No. 35 is related and amendments Nos. 7 and 35 may be discussed together.
ANSO connects £3.9 million which is transferred to the Met service. Because ANSO is being reconstituted as the Irish Aviation Authority and, according to the Minister's Second Stage speech, will be mandated to operate on commercial lines, there is a fear in the Met service that part of the commercialisation would be to offer a package of air traffic control services plus Met services and that the amount of charges accruing to the Met service would diminish. In the Bill, the Minister is giving it full control over the setting of charges and that seems to include Met charges for a service it does not give. I want to protect the position of the Irish Meterological Service.
The first amendment in my name seeks an exclusion for the Met service along the lines of that made in section 4 for the lighthouse authorities. If that amendment does not find favour with the Minister the charges in respect of the met service, which I am suggesting in the other amendment, would be set by the Minister rather than the new Authority. The amendment seeks to protect the interests of the Irish Met service and to allay its fears.
I agree with Deputy Noonan. Those fears have been expressed by the staff of the Met service who have made similar representations. I live close to a number of people who work in the Met service in Ballygreen and Shannon Airport and they expressed their fears to me. I have heard from the Minister and his staff that those fears are not well founded. In this public session perhaps the Minister will allay those fears which are very real among the staff.
There is some confusion about the role of the meteorological service and the provisions of this Bill. The Bill does not directly impinge on the meteorological service. Aviation and meteorological matters are covered in Annexe 3 to the Chicago Convention. Matters arising under Annexe 3 — meteorological matters — are specifically excluded from the ambit of this Bill. There is no intention to change the present arrangements.
With regard to amendment No. 35, section 43 deals with the charging arrangements by he company in respect of is main services — air navigation services and aeronautical communications services. The proposed amendment misconstrues the the purpose of section 43 (3) (b). This subsection is designed to cover specific charges that might be levied by the Minister. The company in this case would be acting as agent of the Minister and as the charging authority it would determine the charges met by the Minister. The subsection does not cover charges for meteorological services as they are not independently charged for. The company requires meteorological services. These will be provided by the meteorological service on whose behalf the Minister or his Department will invoice the company as a normal commercial transaction for the full cost of these services.
Similarly the full cost of other services provided to the company by the Minister, for example, policy advice, guidance etc. will be invoiced to and paid by the company. It would be entirely inappropriate and at variance with the whole purpose of this section to single out the meteorological service in this section. To do so would require that all suppliers to the company should be similarly mentioned.
We are maintaining the meteorological office under the control of the Minister as a State agency. As a result the Minister and the company will have to agree what charges will be set for meteorological service.
The Minister also has policy control over the new company. As he will have direct control over the meteorological office he will be in a position to ensure that the meteorological service cannot be excluded from providing services to the new company unless for very serious reasons.
I thank the Minister for his very full clarification. There was concern among the staff and in a technical Bill of this nature where provisions are being re-enacted one would need to follow the trail back to some international convention such as the Chicago Convention. It is difficult for people in the Met service to get the kind of assurance they require. I thank the Minister for the assurance he has given today. It is a full and complete assurance and I withdraw my two amendments.
How will the Irish Aviation Authority affect the local light-houses?
We are talking about lighthouse signals used for navigation proposes by helicopters, ships and boats.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, subsection (5) (a), line 28, to delete "on" and substitute "of".
This is a technical amendment. The purpose of which is to rectify a clerical error.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.