Amendment Nos. 77 and 78 in the name of the Minister have already been discussed with amendment No. 64.
Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Bill, 1997: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 38.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 31, subsection (1), line 17, after "subsidiary" to insert "of the company".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 31, subsection (2), line 34, after "subsidiary" to insert "of the company".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Amendment No. 79 in the name of the Minister has already been discussed with amendment No. 64.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 31, subsection (1), line 41, before "unless" to insert "of the company".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 80 is in the name of Deputy Stagg. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 are related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Stagg is not present.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 31, subsection (1), line 42, after "to do so" to insert "or is required or authorised to do so by law".
My amendment No. 82 relates to the issue which Deputy Stagg wanted to address. The Minister will be aware of the joint union-company group established within Aer Rianta called Constructive Participation. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the existing practice, which allows a constructive dialogue on internal business to bring out the best between workers and management on day to day issues and which is very satisfactory from everybody's point of view, would still be facilitated notwithstanding anything in sections 39 and 40. I am not saying amendment No. 82 is a work of art but it is important that this dialogue continues.
On reading Deputy Stagg's amendments, I am not sure if he is making the same point. I am sure the Minister will be supportive of Compact, whose role in this legislation has been positive. The minimum I could accept is an assurance that nothing in this legislation would involve the type of secrecy or confidentiality which would debar management from discussing such issues with the trades unions and staff.
I thank Deputy Yates for the constructive way he tabled this amendment. Incidentally, it is Compact for Constructive Participation and not "Contract for Constructive Participation" as stated in Deputy Yates amendment.
I know, from speaking to members of the trades union, that they are concerned that this section would be open to abuse. Then there is the related matter of worker directors. While they can reflect the workers' views, to what extent can they relay these views outside? The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988 are silent on the rights and duties of worker directors. Therefore, the duties set out in the Companies Acts and case law must apply equally to all directors, however appointed.
Even before the group of trades unions met me I knew of that strong compact and what it had achieved - the first Compact newsletter is to be launched soon, for instance. The difficulty is that, while I share the Deputy's point of view and admiration for this compact, the wording is not legally enshrined here. It would not be wise to legislate for that. If we can get some general preamble which would reflect it, I would look at that.
The Deputy admitted he thought the wording might not be suitable.
The term I have included in quotations is not defined in the definition section and, therefore, it is weak. I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 82 on the basis that I will resubmit something similar on Report Stage.
By way of a preamble.
What I was seeking specifically was the Minister's assurance that, as the Bill is currently framed, the dialogue would not be precluded on the basis of confidentiality.
I can give the Deputy assurances on that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments No. 81 not moved.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 in the name of the Minister have already been discussed with amendment No. 64.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 32, subsection (1), line 10, before "for" to insert "of the company".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 32, subsection (1), line 11, before "company" to insert "or subsidiary, as the case may be,".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 41.
Amendment No. 85 is in the name of Deputy Stagg. Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 are related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 32, subsection (1)(b), line 27, to delete "the interests of the State" and substitute "the national interest".
Amendment No. 87 relates to section 41, which is quite unusual. That section allows the Minister or her successor to give a direction in writing to the company, which must comply with it. I do not know what is envisaged under this - whether it is to invade Iraq - or what instruction the Minister might give. The point is that it is totally open-ended.
In amendment No. 87, I am proposing a touch of democracy to put the breaks on whatever Order the Minister might dream up. The same procedure should apply as in standard legislation, that is, by way of statutory instrument a draft Order which should be laid before the each House of the Oireachtas.
I had thought that an Order for a sum in excess of £1 million might be something which should come before the Houses of the Oireachtas but then I thought that a resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas might be the way to go. What I was envisaged here was where, for instance, there was an airport in the Minister's constituency and the Minister decided to give an Order that it be acquired by Aer Rianta, which is a plausible "Yes Minister" type scenario. There should be some check or balance in the system by which the Houses of the Oireachtas could say "yea" or "nay".
This is a standard provision by a Minister, not particularly me. I do not own an airport.
Not yet.
It would be shrewd of me to own one in County Longford. Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, Bord Gais Éireann, CIE, IAA, An Post, RPPI and Telecom Éireann are affected by such provisions while Bord na Móna is not. The majority of semi-State companies have a facility whereby a Minister can issue a direction. If there was a need to produce and lay every direction to a company before the House, it would make a nonsense of ministerial responsibility, etc. I am not disposed to accept the amendment because such provisions apply to all semi-State companies with the exception of two.
I imagine the Minister might have occasion to write to the chairman or chief executive of a semi-State company to convey her views on a particular matter. However, this provision is awesome in so far as it involves a "direction" as opposed to "representations". With regard to the Acts to which the Minister referred, is she aware of the type of issue involved here particularly in respect of Aer Rianta? I could understand the position if the Minister wanted to ensure the company's accounts were submitted on time or that its house was in order, but what if it is a more serious matter? Does the provision cater for matters relating to financial concerns?
Section 41 states
(1) The Minister may give a direction in writing to the company requiring it-
(a) to comply with policy decisions of a general kind made by the Minister in relation to the functions assigned to the company by or under this Act, or
(b) to do or refrain from doing anything to which a function of the company relates, the doing, or refraining from doing of which is, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary or expedient in the interests of the State.
(2) If the company considers that compliance by it with a direction under subsection (1) would adversely affect the safety of aircraft it shall so inform the Minister and the Authority.
The wording might be slightly different in each of the Acts governing the individual semi-State companies to which I referred. However, these provisions are generally the same in terms of policy.
Is the provision primarily concerned with safety?
The legislation governing the IAA has precisely the same wording.
Could the Minister give semi-State companies an instruction to acquire land? Is that included in the provision?
I would not ask them to do that. However, if there was to be such a purchase, the companies would approach me for permission. Then it would be a matter for the board, the Department, the Minister and the Government to decide.
Section 41 states "The Minister may give a direction in writing to the company requiring it"——
Yes, "to comply with policy decisions of a general kind".
Let us consider a situation where the Minister had a policy to promote regional airports.
I have such a policy.
In the interests of clarification, has a direction ever been issued?
No.
A direction is a serious matter. I assume if the Minister writes to a chairman asking him to consider the feasibility of a certain action, he will take action. A direction would not be required.
Does the Deputy have difficulty with the use of the word "direction"?
No. I merely wish to know what is the purpose of this power.
I read out the list of the State companies and the provision was included in the heads of the Bill submitted to the previous Government.
I am not making a political point.
I am aware of that. However, the provision refers to compliance with "policy decisions of a general kind". The Deputy's point about the regional airports provides a good analogy. Not that the regional airports have anything to do with Aer Rianta but they have approached me seeking money for the purchase of land or some other purpose. I would not approach them to ask them to purchase land.
Aer Rianta approached the Minister for money?
No, the regional airports.
If the Minister was approached by a regional airport, representatives of which stated that they do not own any airports other than those with which Aer Rianta is involved, could she give a direction under section 41——
Is the Deputy referring to a regional airport such as Knock?
I am referring to all of them.
They have nothing to do with Aer Rianta.
Could the Minister give an instruction to Aer Rianta to acquire an airport under the provision?
No.
The Minster would not have the power to do so?
Absolutely not. That would not be general policy. Regional airports are privately owned and managed, whereas Aer Rianta operates public State airports which are in public ownership.
Amendment No. 85 states:
In page 32, subsection (1)(b), line 27, to delete "the interests of the State" and substitute "the national interest".
The Minister changed the original scheme——
Are we dealing with amendment No. 85?
Yes, we are taking amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 together by agreement.
The Minister changed the original scheme which referred to "the national interest" and she has substituted the term "in the interests of the State". I believe use of the words "the national interest" was better because they imply a broader terminology. I suggest the Minister re-institute the term because her wording can be seen as narrow and unjustifiable. Is the Minister saying that something could be in the interests of the State but contra to the national interest? If not, perhaps she will accept the amendment. The original wording was better because the current terminology is narrow.
I like the term "the national interest" as distinct from that of "the interests of the State". However, the Parliamentary Draftsman suggested that we retain the wording used in the Bill. I have no objection to using the term "the national interest" because I like the sound of it, particularly in these difficult times.
With regard to amendment No. 86, section 41(2) states:
If the company considers that compliance by it with a direction under subsection (1) would adversely affect the safety of aircraft it shall so inform the Minister and the Authority.
However, the company would still have to comply with the direction, even if it was believed it would affect the safety of aircraft.
To what section is the Deputy referring?
Section 41(2). I suggest that the term "and need not comply with the directive". be inserted at the end of the subsection. It is desirable to do this rather than leaving the subsection in its current form because the company would still have to comply with the direction even if it knew the safety of an aircraft would be affected. Will the Minister consider accepting the amendment?
The subsection states:
If the company considers that compliance by it with a direction under subsection (1) would adversely affect the safety of aircraft it shall so inform the Minister and the Authority.
If I understand him correctly, Deputy Stagg is saying the Minister could state that he or she does not care whether the safety of aircraft was affected.
There may be a time-lag in communication and the company may receive a directive which, it may be believed, might adversely affect the safety of an aircraft. The company should have the power or independence to ignore the directive until such time as the matter is resolved. As the subsection is drafted, it will be required to implement the directive even though the Minister must be informed that in doing so an aircraft is being endangered. It might be safer to amend the subsection to include the term "and need not comply with the directive".
The Deputy is making the point that there might be a megalomaniac holding the office of Minister. The outcome of the Deputy's point is that the company might say to the Minister "The direction you have given us would adversely affect the safety of aircraft but because the direction has been given we are going to comply with it."
The Bill as proposed would require them to do it, even though they knew it would adversely affect the safety of the aircraft.
We will ask the draftsman to look at it. I cannot ever see it happening.
I listened carefully to Deputies Yates and Stagg. In not accepting Deputy Yates's amendment the Minister is unlikely to agree to the total opposition to the section. Nonetheless, it is important to highlight the concerns about this section. I am sure many people are aware of the benign intentions of the current Minister but they would be alarmed at the possibility of an adversarial system arising in which the Minister might be at loggerheads with the company. The issue of safety is not black and white. A large landfill site was proposed for an area near Blanchardstown and airline pilots raised questions of safety related to flocks of birds. These issues can become quite emotive and complicated. In an adversarial system a Minister may seek to have his or her way.
In the previous general election campaign the Progressive Democrats stated an interest in selling Aer Rianta. Questions would also arise about the Minister having power to direct such a course of action. The building of good relations on all sides would be sacrificed. I ask the Minister to define more clearly the legal parameters rather than her personal parameters with regard to the powers under this section, which seem significant.
We have an amalgam of points made on the amendments and the section. I will ask the Minister to respond to the points.
Deputy Stagg addressed the issue of safety with regard to his reading of section 41 (1) (a) and (b) and section 41 (2) and (3). I agreed to seek an indication whether wording might be found to ease concerns about a situation arising whereby a company could be given a direction to do something it considered unsafe.
I understand the reasoning behind the amendments. There would seem to be a very broad power in the section without adequate safeguards. A direction given by the Minister that would involved the expenditure of £10 million or £20 million does not seem to be covered. Equally, if there was a difference of view between the authority and the Minister there does not seem to be an appeal mechanism.
I appreciate why the section is necessary and I support the concept of a mechanism such as this. A change may come about in duty free shopping and a Minister might feel it necessary to put in place a new system for shopping at international airports. Such an event may not be directly related to aviation business but it would be legitimate for the Minister to direct the company to undertake a reorganisation of the system.
However, I would be concerned about a situation where the Minister gave a direction that might involve the expenditure of several million pounds. There does not seem to be a financial dimension to the section. It might be useful to examine the matter before the Report Stage to see whether an appeal mechanism might be appropriate or to include a financial dimension for cases involving large expenditure.
I oppose the amendments. The section gives the Minister the authority to give a direction and that would be based on the Minister's role as the principal shareholder of the company. As such she should be in a position to give a direction on any policy matter or decisions. Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, contain the provisions for the shareholder and the shareholder's rights. I see nothing wrong with the section and no need to change it. I support this section.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 32, before section 42, but in Part V, to insert the following new section:
42.-(1) The company may require the payment to it of airport charges, in respect of the use of its airports, at such rates as it may, from time to time, with the approval of the Minister, determine.
(2) Liability for the payment of any charge payable by virtue of subsection (1), together with interest on such charges in respect of any period during which the charges were due but not paid, may be imposed upon the operator or registered owner of an aircraft, whether such aircraft is registered in the State or is not so registered, or upon both those persons.
(3) For the purpose of facilitating the assessment and collection of charges payable by virtue of subsection (1) the operator or registered owner of an aircraft shall-
(a) make such records of the movement of aircraft, the tonnage, class and description of aircraft, the number of passengers or volume and types of cargo carried thereon and such other particulars relating to aircraft, passengers or cargo as the company may specify,
(b) preserve all records to which this subsection applies for such period as may be specified by the company,
(c) produce records to which this subsection applies for inspection by an authorised person, at such times as required to so do by an authorised person, and
(d) furnish to the company such particulars of any such records as the company may specify.
(4) (a) Without prejudice to section 40, charges payable to the company by virtue of subsection (1), together with interest on such charges in respect of any period during which the charges were due but not paid, shall be recoverable by the company as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) The reference in paragraph (a) to charges payable to the company includes a reference to any balance of an amount of such charges remaining due to the company after it has sold an aircraft under section 40 to satisfy those charges.
(5) (a) An operator or registered owner of an aircraft who refuses or fails to furnish the company with any record referred to in subsection (3) when requested by the company to do so shall be guilty of an offence.
(b) An operator or registered owner of an aircraft who defaults in the payment of charges imposed by the company under subsection (1) shall, without prejudice to any proceedings or steps taken or to be taken for the purpose of recovering the charges under subsection (4) or section 40, be guilty of an offence.
(6) The Public Offices (Fees) Act, 1879, shall not apply in respect of airport charges.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 32, before section 42, but in Part V, to insert the following new section:
43.-(1) Where a person (in this section referred to as 'the defaulter') defaults in paying charges imposed by the company under section 39, the company may, subject to the provisions of this section, detain, pending payment of such charges-
(a) the aircraft in respect of which the charges were incurred (whether or not they were incurred by the person who is the operator or the registered owner of the aircraft at the time when detention commences), or
(b) any other aircraft of which the defaulter is the operator or the registered owner,
and if the charges are not paid within 56 days of the date when the detention commences, sell, subject to subsection (4), the aircraft in order to satisfy the charges.
(2) The company shall not detain or continue to detain an aircraft under subsection (1) if the operator or registered owner of the aircraft or any person claiming an interest in the aircraft claims that the charges concerned, or any of them, are not due, and gives the company, pending the determination of the question as to whether or not the charges are due, sufficient security as determined by the company for the payment of the charges which the company alleges are due.
(3) For the purpose of effecting the detention of an aircraft under subsection (1), an authorised person may enter the aircraft and do all things in relation to the aircraft necessary for or incidental to the said purpose.
(4) If the company proposes to sell an aircraft that it has detained under subsection (1), it shall apply to the High Court for leave to sell the aircraft and the High Court shall give such leave on it being established that-
(a) a sum is due to the company for airport charges,
(b) default has been made in the payment thereof, and
(c) the aircraft that the company seeks leave to sell is liable to sale under subsection (1) by reason of the said default.
(5) (a) If the company proposes to apply for leave to sell an aircraft under subsection (4), it shall take such steps as are practicable for bringing the proposed application to the notice of persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the determination of the court thereon.
(b) Failure by the company to comply with a requirement of this subsection in respect of any sale shall not, after the sale has taken place, be a ground for impugning the validity of such sale, but this paragraph shall not prejudice any action for damages against the company by a person suffering loss in consequence of a failure aforesaid.
(6) The following provisions shall have effect in respect of an order of a court granting leave under subsection (4) for the sale of an aircraft (in this subsection referred to as 'the order') and the sale of the aircraft on foot of such order:
(a) the order shall contain a declaration that the company shall have the right to transfer the aircraft and the company shall by virtue of such declaration be entitled to transfer the aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as if it were the owner thereof,
(b) the sale shall operate to vest the aircraft in the purchaser freed of all mortgages, liens, charges or other interests therein whatsoever, and the purchaser shall not require any other evidence of the title to the aircraft than a copy, certified by the company, of the order.
(7) Where the company sells an aircraft, registered under section 9 or 10 of the Act of 1946 or section 58 of the Act of 1993, in accordance with this section it shall, by notice in writing, inform the Authority of the sale and such notice shall contain particulars of the sale.
(8) If the company sells an aircraft under this section it shall ensure that the aircraft is sold for the best price that can reasonably be obtained.
(9) The proceeds of a sale under this section shall be applied as follows, and in the following order, that is to say-
(a) in payment of any duty (whether of customs or excise) or value-added tax chargeable on the aircraft, in the State,
(b) in payment of the expenses incurred by the company in detaining, keeping and selling the aircraft (including the expenses in connection with any application to a court under subsection (4)),
(c) in payment, in accordance with subsection (10), of-
(i) the airport charges found to be due by the defaulter to the company, on an application under subsection (4), and
(ii) charges under section 43 or 44 of the Act of 1993 that a court has found to be due by the defaulter to the Authority, Eurocontrol or the Minister, and the surplus, if any, of such proceeds shall be paid to the person or persons whose interest or interests in the aircraft have been divested.
(10) The proceeds of a sale under this section shall, in payment of the charges referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (9), be applied, as between those charges, in such amounts as are proportionate to the sums owing in respect of those charges.
(11) The power of detention and sale conferred by this section in respect of an aircraft shall extend to the equipment of the aircraft and any stores for use in connection with the operation of the aircraft (being equipment and stores carried in an aircraft) whether or not such equipment or stores is or are the property of the person who is the registered owner or operator of the aircraft and accordingly references to an aircraft in subsections (1) to (9) shall include, except where the context otherwise requires, references to any such equipment and stores.
(12) The power of detention conferred by this section in respect of an aircraft shall extend to any aircraft documents, and any such documents may, if the aircraft is sold under this section, be transferred by the company to the purchaser of the aircraft.
(13) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any right of the company to recover airport charges or any part thereof, by action.
(14) In this section 'aircraft documents' means certificates, records or other documents relating to the use of an aircraft or its equipment, including any certificate of registration, maintenance or airworthiness of that aircraft, any log book relating to the use of that aircraft or its equipment and any similar document, and includes any record required to be made by virtue of regulations under section 43 of the Act of 1993.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 32, before section 42, but in Part V, to insert the following new section:
44.-(1) Where an aircraft is left at a State airport and the company is of opinion that it has been abandoned, the company shall serve a notice in writing on the registered owner or operator of the aircraft requiring either or both of them, within a period specified in the notice, to remove the aircraft from the airport.
(2) A notice under subsection (1) shall state that failure to comply with the notice shall be an offence and that the company may, where the notice is not complied with, remove, sell or otherwise dispose of the aircraft to which the notice relates.
(3) A person who fails to comply with a requirement in a notice under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Subject to the provisions of this section, the company may after the expiration of the period specified in a notice under subsection (1) remove, sell or otherwise dispose of an aircraft to which the notice relates.
(5) A sale under this section shall operate to vest the aircraft in the purchaser freed of all mortgages, liens, charges or other interests therein whatsoever.
(6) Where the company sells an aircraft, registered under section 9 or 10 of the Act of 1946 or section 58 of the Act of 1993, in accordance with this section, it shall, by notice in writing, inform the Authority of the sale and such notice shall contain particulars of the sale.
(7) The proceeds of any sale under this section shall be applied as follows and in the following order, that is to say-
(a) in payment of any duty (whether of customs or excise) or value-added tax chargeable on the aircraft, in the State,
(b) in payment of any expenses incurred by the company in the exercise of its functions under this section,
(c) in payment, in accordance with subsection (8), of-
(i) any airport charges owed to the company by the operator or registered owner of the aircraft to which the sale concerned related, and
(ii) any charges under section 43 or 44 of the Act of 1993 owed to the Authority, Eurocontrol or the Minister by the registered owner or operator of such an aircraft.
(8) The proceeds of a sale under this section shall, in payment of the charges referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (7), be applied, as between those charges, in such amounts as are proportionate to the sums owing in respect of those charges.
(9) The company shall, after the application of the proceeds of a sale of an aircraft under this section, retain the balance (if any) of such proceeds until claimed by the registered owner of the aircraft or a person authorised by the registered owner to so claim, but if the said balance remains unclaimed for a period of 6 months from the date of the application of such proceeds in accordance with subsection (7), the said balance shall become the property of the company.
(10) A person who obstructs or impedes the company or its servants or agents in the exercise of the functions conferred by this section shall be guilty of an offence.
(11) A notice under this section shall be served on a registered owner or operator, as the case may be, in one of the following ways, that is to say-
(a) by delivering it to him or her,
(b) by addressing it to him or her and leaving it at his or her usual or last known residence or place of business,
(c) by sending it by prepaid registered post, or other form of recorded delivery service prescribed by the Minister, to him or her at his or her usual or last known residence or place of business, or
(d) in the case of a body corporate-
(i) by delivering it or sending it by prepaid registered post, or other form of recorded delivery service prescribed by the Minister, to the secretary or other officer of the body at its registered office or principal place of business, or
(ii) where the registered office or principal place of business of the body cannot by reasonable enquiry be ascertained, by affixing it in some conspicuous place on the aircraft to which the notice relates.".
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 42.
Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 32, subsection (2), line 36, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
If these by-laws are vital surely they "shall" be put in place as opposed to "may" be put in place. It would be a good idea to consult the local authority as well, as it may relate to localised issues. That is not an obligation to obey or take instruction from the local authorities, but it is important to try to have as much involvement with them as possible.
Amendment No. 91 seeks to substitute "shall" for "may". That would compel you to make a by-law there. "Shall" is a word of compulsion whereas a by-law may not be required. Neither the company or the Minister should be compelled to make a by-law if there is no need for one.
Amendment No. 92 asks us to consult with the relevant borough authority. The whole subsection relates to safety. The consultative body for Irish aircraft safety is the Irish Aviation Authority, not each relevant county council.
Are by-laws to be put in place under this Bill? I take the Minister's point that each item might not require a by-law but there shall be by-laws in operation in this area.
Surely all these issues relate to the operation of airports. There is controversy in Dublin over expansion on to land adjacent to the airport. If someone wished to develop an adjunct to the airport, should the council be involved? Is the Minister saying this relates purely to the landing of aircraft, securing them and impounding them and would not extend beyond the airport premises?
The Deputy asked about by-laws being made under this Bill. There may be some concerning parking and regulation of traffic at State airports. In answer to the second question, I understand this relates only to safety measures. The relevant subsection refers to making by-laws relating to the safety of aircraft. It is a matter for the IAA to regulate the safety of aircraft.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 92 not moved.
On the question of the appointment of authorised officers, could the Minister give us some indication of how these officers are appointed under this Bill?
That is not dealt with under this section.
They are mentioned.
We can deal with this later on.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 34, paragraph (b), line 6, to delete "section 49" and substitute "section 50".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 44 to 45, inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 46.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 are related and can be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 35, subsection (1), line (1), to delete "any of its airports" and substitute "a State airport".
These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 94 ensures the company's power to lop trees near airports are used at airports in Ireland and not abroad.
Amendment No. 95 tightens up on the language of section 46(1). The company will be only be able to lop trees near an airport if it is believed the trees will interfere with the operation of that airport. The previous wording was considered too vague by the parliamentary draftsman. 'Woodman, woodman spare that tree, Touch not a single bough'. It means only boughs in Ireland can be touched.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 35, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "an airport" and substitute "that airport".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed.
Section 47 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 35, before section 48, to insert the following new section:
48.-(1) Whenever the company is of an opinion that the unrestricted use of a particular area of land in the vicinity of an airport owned or managed by it would interfere with the efficient operation or development of that airport, it may by order prohibit any person, save under and in accordance with a permit granted by the company, from erecting or adding to any building on the land specified in the order.
(2) The Minister shall make regulations to enable this section to have full effect.".
This is an amendment to restore something that was deleted from the draft scheme of the Bill and which was in the original Bill. It sought to ensure the type of situation that arose with the dump, referred to earlier by Deputy Sargent, could not arise again. It was possible the planning authority could decide to allow something to develop which would be dangerous to the air travelling public.
An unrelated thing which could have that effect?
Yes, it could be a skyscraper or a dump, as precipitated by this section. The Minister has power to prevent a dump being developed under IAA legislation. At the time that power was deemed to be weak. This section is to ensure that situation could not arise again. It is about safety and the operation of the airport. I ask the Minister to examine this seriously as recent history would indicate that power is needed and the existing power could be challenged in the courts. I was Minister with responsibility at the time and if I had had to make an order saying a dump could not go ahead it would have been challenged in the courts. The legal advice I had at the time said there was no certainty my order would stand up in court. This section would give the company the power to designate areas near the airport which would not allow anything to operate there, except under licence. It would be an additional licensing for any development, as well as the normal planning permission, in the areas designated by the company as the curtilage of the airport. It is desirable to have that power or a planning authority could grant permission for something undesirable by other means. The power of the Minister to countermand a bad decision is weak.
The thrust of this was in the previous Heads of the Bill but safeguards built into the provision as included in the original Bill have been omitted in the wording Deputy Stagg has put forward here. They would be safeguards with regard to constitutional rights of property. The safeguards in the original Heads consisted of the need to obtain the prior written consent of the relevant Minister, the obligation on the company to consult the planning authority and the entitlement of the landowners to compensation.
I have no difficulty with that. My insertion is the general thrust of what was there rather than the detail.
There is also the IAA and its responsibility for safety which impinge on this as well. I shall certainly examine it. It was in the original scheme and there are omissions in this wording which were in the original Heads of the Bill. There is a need for consultation with the IAA. The amendment is tabled with good intent but this is a much wider issue to which I would have to give more time.
The powers the Minister has under the 1950 Act to prevent undesirable development in the area of flight paths was deemed to be a weak power. The idea was to strengthen that power because in the Department at the time we did not know whether the dump would get permission. Our advice was that it would be extremely dangerous and we were not sure whether we could prevent it. As it happened, the planning authorities adequately dealt with the matter for us.
The original powers under the 1950 Act related to interference with the navigation of aircraft which is a safety consideration rather than an operational one. The proposed amendment represents a significant departure from the existing provisions but I wish to look at the original heads of the Bill and come back.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 36, subsection (4), line 12, to delete "paragraph (a)" and substitute "paragraph (b)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 36, subsection (1), line 39, after "substance" to insert "(including nuclear material within the meaning of the Radiological Protection Act, 1991)".
The amendment simply restores the reference to including nuclear material within the meaning of the Radiological Protection Act, 1991, which was in the original draft. During my period in office, I was called on a number of occasions to at least warn that we would prevent planes with nuclear material overflying our country without permission even if there was compliance with international regulation similar to other countries which have signed up to international agreements. It is important we have radiological materials included in the list.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 50, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Minister must state her powers to stop certain aircraft landing and overflying. Will they be changed under this legislation? The same powers apply even though authority may be vested in the company now.
The powers are the same.
If an airplane carrying nuclear weapons sought permission to land in Shannon on its way to Iraq——
I am informed an application would first have to be made to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Does the Department then communicate with the Minister?
The Department of Foreign Affairs will let us know its decision.
Will the same authority apply to the carrying of nuclear waste? There has been a suggestion that there may have been traffic in sizeable amounts of nuclear waste, especially from countries in the former Soviet Union to other countries for recycling. I want to ensure this is covered under the section.
Nothing changes and with regard to Saddam Hussein, permission must be sought from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Sizeable amounts of nuclear waste were being transported for recycling.
This was done under direction from the West to the East for money. The suggestion was that aircraft would stopover at Shannon and that was prevented at the time.
Deputy Daly raised an important matter. If aircraft are carrying nuclear waste and are landing at airports, who knows they are flying in our airspace and landing here for refuelling?
There are international agreements in place to deal with notification, etc.
Question put and agreed to.
I suggest the committee meets at 2 p.m. on Thursday to conclude Committee Stage? Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 19 February 1998.