: I have had discussions with the Minister and in view of his understanding of the difficulties which were outlined I am satisfied that changes will be made to ensure that the Meteorological Office will not be left out on a limb.
SECTION 43.
Amendment No. 34B not moved.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 35:
In page 30, subsection (3) (b), line 42, after "Minister" to insert "but, in the case of charges for meteorological services, such charges shall be determined by the Minister."
The Minister is aware of concerns expressed by people employed in the Meteorological Office. We discussed this under a previous amendment and we took the two together for the purpose of discussion. The assurances given by the Minister do not fully satisfy the people in the Meteorological Office. Maybe the Minister would have a look at it again between now and Report Stage.
: We have already discussed this amendment.
: I will look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
: I move amendment No. 36:
In page 32, subsection (9), line 7, to delete "to the company".
This subsection refers to the fact that it is intended the company will make regulations about the payment of charges for terminal services, that is air traffic services provided for aircraft landing or taking off at airports. At present users are not charged specifically for these services. ANSO's cost in providing these services at the State airports are charged against the surplus surrendered annually to the Department by Aer Rianta. Pending the introduction of a separate charging system, the company's cost for these terminal services will be met by a direct charge on Aer Rianta. It is expected that the Aer Rianta surplus will be reduced by a corresponding amount. The section as drafted makes the introduction of charges payable to the company. When the regulations are made requiring the users to pay a specific charge for terminal services it may be decided that Eurocontrol will act as collection agent rather than than the charges being paid directly to the company. We, therefore, propose to delete the words "to the company" to give the company more flexibility as to the payment arrangements which it sets out in the regulations. When the new charging system comes into operation and the user is charged specifically for terminal services we would expect Aer Rianta's fees to be adjusted accordingly so that there would be no overall increase in users costs.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 43, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
: Subsections (1) and (2) of this section are not clear. The section provides for charges to be made by the company in respect of air navigation and aeronautical communication services regardless of whether those services are provided in pursuance of international arrangements. I assume the phrase "or otherwise" leaves it open to the company to charge for services which are not required by Eurocontrol but which the company decides for its own good reasons to supply itself. What might those services be, and in what circumstances might the company decide to provide those services? The question is provoked by the provision in section 43 (2) which provides for liability for those charges in relation to services regardless of whether they are used or could be used with the equipment installed in the aircraft.
I know it could be argued, rightly, that the provision of aeronautical services should be paid for by all users of the airspace even if in some cases we are talking about light aircraft not using the communication services, radar services or transponder services provided. What is the purpose of including this provision? Does this mean that the Minister envisages cases of being overflown by aircraft that have incompatible equipment and that we want to provide that they will have to pay the charges also? Is it necessary to do it in this way? Is there not a provision in the Eurocontrol Convention that allows for this?
: Deputy Dukes is talking about section 43 (1) and (2). Section 43 (1) differs from section 12 (1) of the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Act, 1963, as amended by section 1 of the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Act, 1971, in that powers exercisable by Eurocontrol or the Minister are now extended to the authority and the authority's remit is broadened. Subsection (2) re-enacts the provisions of section 12 (2) of the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Act, 1963, as amended again by section 1 of the Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Act, 1971. The wording has been slightly changed for greater clarity. It is line with Articles 9 and 10 of the multilateral agreement relating to route charges. Article 9 provides:
The person liable to pay the charge shall be the person who is the operator of the aircraft at the time the flight was performed.
Article 10 provides:
If the identity of the operator is not known the owner of the aircraft shall be regarded as the operator unless he proves which other person was the operator.
There is new equipment in modern aircraft called transponders which are informational and navigational aids. As a result, aircraft have much greater information available to them and it is more accessible and transferable between air traffic control and the aircraft than heretofore. It is on account of all those changes that we have included these subsections.
: I thank the Minister for that information. As far as it goes, I wish I could say that it is perfectly clear but ——
: I am a layman also when it comes to aviation matters.
: I take the Minister's point that it is largely repeating and in some cases updating provisions that are there already. Could the Minister tell me why subsection (2) provides that the charges be made whether or not the services are actually used or could be used with the equipment installed in the aircraft?
: Basically it is to take account of the new equipment. Some aircraft have it and others do not. I will have another look to see if it can be clarified for Report Stage.
: Is this the same as telling people that because one's local authority is making a charge for refuse services, one has to pay the charge regardless of whether one has any refuse? It is the same logic.
: I do not think it is the same logic. In this case if one owns or operates the aircraft and flies through the airspace then one is obliged to pay the necessary charges.
: But if one is not using the service?
: If one is flying through the airspace controlled by the service then obviously one is using the service.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 44 agreed to.