I welcome the Minister. We will continue consideration of the Bill until we have completed Committee Stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
NEW SECTION.
Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Bill, 1997: Committee Stage (Resumed).
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 37, before section 52, but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:
"52. - A person guilty of an offence of disruptive behaviour holding any risk to the safety of air passengers on board flights, shall be liable-
(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both, or
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or toboth.".
I alluded to this matter at an early stage because there were differing possibilities as to where it might fit in. I am seeking clarification on criminal law provisions on unruly, disruptive or unacceptable behaviour during a flight. We hear of such situations involving sporting events or weekend trips, particularly on short haul routes to the UK. People are terrified by these incidents. The majority of cabin crew are female and they are terrified when faced with boisterous and drunken adolescents or young men who misbehave.
We all have anecdotes in this regard. Given that people are in mid air, this behaviour should be taken far more seriously than similar behaviour on the ground. I am trying to ensure that misbehaviour is curbed. Perhaps stiffer penalties are in place and this legislation is not the right place to deal with this matter but I could not envisage a Bill being introduced specifically to deal with this. I would be happy if the Minister or I could find another way of achieving this objective. The Minister may be able to table a proposal on Report Stage but it is worth debating.
As someone who is terrified of flying, I was forced to fly at certain times as Minister of State. I recall one incident involving a rowdy passenger. It was a huge additional terror for passengers. I fully support this amendment.
I share the sentiment behind this amendment. There have been recent press reports of two incidents. This behaviour is totally unacceptable but it is more unacceptable when one is confined in an aeroplane. The proposed wording does not mention the safety of the crew. I am not suggesting the Deputy is not concerned about them. Nor does it concern itself with situations in which the aircraft is on the ground. These issues should also be examined.
The Deputy asked for clarification on the situation under criminal justice legislation. We are studying the legal position with the Irish Aviation Authority and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Sufficient protection may be provided by the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1973, which provides for the application of criminal law to aircraft. The Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1975, implements a measure called the Montreal Convention on the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation. We are examining both Acts to see if they cover this type of incident. We have not received the Attorney General's report but I am considering whether rewording of the amendment would be appropriate or necessary. It may be that the previous Acts need to be strengthened. If this is so then we can work together on an appropriate amendment. They may be sufficient but I will report back on Report Stage. I appreciate the Deputy raising this matter. It is very relevant when discussing a Bill dealing with air navigation.
Does the Minister have any idea of the penalties under existing legislation?
Section 6 of the 1975 Act applies the Montreal Convention on unlawful acts against safety. Section 2 provides that proceedings may be taken for an offence on board an aircraft as if the offence was committed in the State. In other words, the same penalties apply as if the incident took place on the ground.
That is my point. If I assault the passenger next to me, that is even worse than if the incident took place on the ground.
I agree because, quite literally, one is in a heightened atmosphere.
People can walk away from a row on the street. They cannot walk away if they are on an aeroplane. I withdraw the amendment. However, I know the pace at which the Attorney General's office and inter-departmental memos work. Would the Minister ask her officials to give this matter some urgency?
Some of the initial considerations refer to the manner in which the Deputy has put the issue. We have coloured it ourselves by saying that even if the Act is deemed to apply to aircraft it is not clear that a public order offence which occurs on the street should be considered in the same light as when it occurs in flight. Horseplay in the air is a more threatening occurrence when one is confined to a limited space and where there is nowhere to run to or hide.
This is an important point and I know the Minister will address it. I had a similar experience on a flight from Harare to London. A young lady on board was under the influence of drugs. There is no control over this area once the aircraft leaves the ground. The woman had to be restrained with straps for the duration of the flight. One cannot say that misbehaviour is limited to those going to football matches. This issue needs attention. Airlines should consider this as an issue of air safety. I read today that more regular training is needed to cater for events which can happen these days.
The Deputy may be referring to a proposal for a training directive for staff. I support the ideas put to me by the unions in relation to more training.
I know the airline and Aer Rianta staff look out for people who are under the influence of alcohol before they board an aircraft, but substance abuse could take place on board. Training companies could train staff to deal with substance abuse on board aircraft.
One might not know if a person was very inebriated.
I accept that, but the Minister could suggest to Aer Rianta and the air transport companies that they should train staff to deal with people who abuse substances on board an aircraft. It is very hard to control people who are on drugs.
I undertake to report back on our findings.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 52 agreed to.
Sections 53 and 54 agreed to.
SECTION 55.
Question proposed: "That section 55 stand part of the Bill".
This section deals with rates to local authorities. When does Aer Rianta, for example, become liable to pay rates?
I understand from people at Shannon Airport that Clare County Council will not levy rates.
Clare County Council will find every means at its disposal to get rates as quickly as possible. Some buildings will already have been valued and others will have been exempted. I presume rates are being paid on some buildings in the complex that are being used for commercial purposes.
I presume rates would be levied the year after the change of status and not in the current year. Commercial rates are levied at the beginning of the year.
In the Minister's opinion, is airport valuation done by the independent valuation office and rates levied by the local authorities?
The valuation office is responsible for that and the county council levy it. That is the procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 56 and 57 agreed to.
SECTION 58.
We now come to amendment No. 100 in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 are related. It is proposed to take Amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 102 together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 39, subsection (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete ", whether or not any claim in respect thereof was made before that day,".
This section provides that after vesting day, personal loss or injury claims arising from an incident at a State airport before vesting day shall lie against the company and not the Minister. This set of technical Government amendments was proposed by the parliamentary draftsman in case an injury happened before a particular day, but a claim was proceeded with after that day. That is what the three amendments deal with.
Some months ago I met Mr. McDonnell and others who were in charge of CIE. I had heard that in a given year claims against Dublin Bus could be in excess of £12 million. When I asked them about insurance, they said they carried their own. They were replacing their fleet out of a cashflow from delaying claims going through the courts process. Does Aer Rianta have its own insurance? Do the majority of State companies under the Minister's aegis, because of their size, carry their own risk?
I am not sure. I did not anticipate that question but I will communicate with the Deputy on it.
It is extraordinary because most private companies would not do that. The taxpayer could be faced with a horror story one day.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 39, between lines 7 and 8 to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Any legal proceedings pending immediately before the vesting day to which the Minister, any other State authority or the State is a party, that relate to a function of the company, shall be continued, with the substitution in the proceedings of the company, in so far as they so relate, for any such party.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 39, lines 8 to 17, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) Where, before the passing of this Act, agreement has been reached between the parties concerned in settlement of a claim to which subsection (1) relates the terms of which have not been implemented, or judgment has been given in favour of a person but has not been enforced, the terms of the agreement or judgment, as the case may be, shall, in so far as it is enforceable against the Minister, any other State authority or the State, be enforceable against the company and, subject to subsection (4), not against the Minister, any other State authority or the State.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 39, before section 59, to insert the following new section:
59.-For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that-
(a) the word 'road' includes, for the purposes of the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1995, or any regulations made thereunder, a road in a State airport, and
(b) a State airport is, for the purposes of any enhancement, a public place.".
I propose that this technical Government amendment be accepted. The clarifications have been repealed in the 1950 Act. Section 59 provided that roads at State airports would continue to be viewed as public roads for the purposes of the Roads Act but omitted the necessary qualification outlined in (b) above in the new text to be inserted by amendment No. 103. It is an inadvertent error which will be corrected if this is accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 59 deleted.
SECTION 60.
Question proposed: "That section 60 stand part of the Bill".
I raised this matter initially in regard to the management of the customs free zone by the new airport authority and Shannon Free Airport Development Company. Shannon Development will be responsible for the promotion and development of industry. I presume we can avoid a situation whereby one agency may have to negotiate with another over land owned by the State.
I thank the Deputy for bringing this to my attention. It is interesting to note that Shannon was the first duty free area. Duty free began in a small kiosk at Shannon Airport under the Customs Free Airport Act, 1947.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 61 and 62 agreed to.
SECTION 63.
I move amendment No. 104:
In page 40, to delete lines 42 to 47 and in page 41, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
" '42A.-(1) Section 19 of the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act, 1998 shall, for the purposes of this Act, apply subject to the following modifications:
(a) references to an "authorised person" shall be construed as references to an authorised officer of the company, and
(b) references to "the company" shall be construed as references to the company within the meaning of this Act.'.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 63, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 64.
We now come to amendment No. 105 in the name of the Minister. This is a drafting amendment and No. 106 is related. Therefore, Nos. 105 and 106 may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 41, line 7, to delete "with" and substitute "subject to".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 106:
In page 41, lines 14 and 15, to delete "the Irish Aviation Authority" and substitute " the company within the meaning of this Act".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 64, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 107:
In page 41, before the First Schedule, to insert the following new section:
65.-(1) The Freedom of Information Act, 1997, shall apply to the company and its subsidiaries as if each of them stood prescribed pursuant to regulations made by the Minister for Finance for the purposes of paragraph 1(5) of the First Schedule to that Act.
(2) This section shall come into operation on the day that is one year from the date of passing of this Act.".
I am sure the Minister will not have any difficulty with this amendment. It simply applies the Freedom of Information Act to the company.
The Freedom of Information Act is designed to enable the phased application of freedom of information to the public service on certain lines. A table of when the Act applies to various State companies was prepared in the Department of Finance under the last Government and adopted by this one. It will apply to all 16 Government Departments and 50 Government offices by 21 April next and to local authorities and health boards from October.
When will this company come under the Act?
It is a State company so it will come under the Act whenever State companies come under it. The view of the Department of Finance is that the scope of the Freedom of Information Act would initially be extended to broadly cover public bodies closely related to public sector organisations, such as schools and hospitals, and non-commercial State bodies. The next move would be to extend the scope of the Act to commercial State bodies at an early date, but a date is not given. The Act is in itself a good thing, and there is a planned programme to extend it to almost all walks of life. I agree with the Deputy's contention that freedom of information should be universal.
If the Minister accepted the principle of the amendment and removed the second part of it, which states that the section will come into operation one year from the day of the passing of the Act, the plan to which the Minister referred could proceed but the intent would be clearly indicated in the first part of the amendment.
I will need to talk to the Minister for Finance about that because a schedule has already been laid out.
I am sure the Minister is aware the Department of Finance is not enthusiastic about the Act.
It is not enthusiastic about anything except keeping its money. I will have to talk to the Department because it has already laid out a schedule for implementing the Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 108:
In page 41, line 17, to delete "REPEALS" and substitute "REPEAL OF ENACTMENTS".
Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.