Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT debate -
Wednesday, 31 Mar 2004

Air Navigation and Transport (International Conventions) Bill 2004: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, and his officials.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) This Act and the Air Navigation and Transport Acts 1936 to 1990 may be cited as the Air Navigation and Transport Acts 1936 to 2004 and shall be read together as one.".

The purpose of the amendment is to correct a technical omission in the Bill by inserting a collective citation with the existing air navigation Acts.

I thank the Deputy for taking the trouble to put down this amendment. I understand it seeks to clarify that the Air Navigation and Transport (International Conventions) Act 2004, assuming the Bill is adopted, should be read together with the previous Acts. It is, in one way, a normal feature of legislation that Acts may be grouped together as a series. It is not a requirement that this happen, and it does not effect the validity of any part of the Act in question if they are not grouped together.

In this particular case the parliamentary counsel has advised me that it would not be appropriate to group this Bill with the other air navigation Acts because the Bill consolidates the law concerning the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions. The law referring to the 1929 Warsaw Convention is currently included in Part 3 and the First Schedule to the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1936, and these are repealed in section 11 of the Bill. The text of the 1929 convention is reproduced in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The 1955 and 1975 amendments to the Warsaw Convention were enacted in the Air Navigation and Transport Acts of 1959 and 1988.

The text of the Warsaw Convention incorporating these amendments is reproduced in Schedule 2 to this Bill. For that reason is not necessary to link this Bill to any of the earlier air navigation Acts. That is the advice I have received from the parliamentary counsel. If it is of assistance, later in the year we will introduce a euro control Bill, and we could look at it in that context. At this juncture, my advice from the parliamentary counsel is that the relevant information is already contained in the Schedules, and the amendment is not the modern way of dealing with these issues in legislation.

I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I have already informed Deputy Breen that amendment No. 2 is out of order. In addition, amendments Nos. 3 and 4, also in the name of Deputy Breen, are out of order.

I received your notice in this regard this morning, Chairman.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Will the Minister update the position regarding the Rome Convention? I understand that since 11 September 2001——

That is outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore, we cannot discuss it.

I accept that. I have been briefed on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, before section 4, but in Part 1, to insert the following new section:

4.--Every Order under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the Order is passed by either such House within the next twenty one days on which that House has sat after the Order is laid before it, the Order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.".

In a couple of places in the Bill there is provision for the Minister to make an order. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that there is the normal accountability to the Oireachtas and that orders made by the Minister would be laid before the Houses. Normally in legislation orders have to be presented to the Dáil and Seanad and I wish to ensure that this general rule continues to apply.

The Bill envisages the Government making orders in three places - in subsections (1) and (2) of section 6 and also in section 9. Both of the orders envisaged under section 6 are for the purposes of noting the current situation under the Montreal Convention. An order under subsection (1) is for the purpose of formally listing the countries and territories to which the convention applies. An order under subsection (2) is for the purpose of formally noting changes in the monetary amounts under the convention.

Unlike the much earlier Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention includes a mechanism for adjusting these amounts to take account of inflation. If a majority of the states that are party to the Montreal Convention do not object to the changed amounts, the higher figures will apply to all states that have ratified the convention. There is no provision in the convention for any single state to opt out of these changes. The net effect is that it is not appropriate for the Oireachtas to annul an order made under either of these subsections. The annulment would have no effect either on the list of states that are party to the convention or on the monetary amounts applicable within the convention.

Thus, as regards subsections (1) and (2), an Oireachtas annulment would not have any effect. However, I accept in principle that the Deputy does have a point in that an order made under section 9 is for the purpose of extending the application of the convention to internal as well as international flights. It is an issue on which it would be legitimate for the Oireachtas to express an opinion. However, in practice most of the provisions of the convention, including the liability limits, are already applied to all EU airlines under EU regulations 2027/1997 and 889/2002 and consequently apply to internal flights in any case. The need to make such orders will not arise.

The euro control Bill will be introduced in the course of this year and I would be disposed to making such an amendment to require an order rather than try to do it in this legislation, which would mean having to go back to the Seanad and possibly missing the 1 May 2004 deadline. In any case, it is not envisaged that the making of such an order will arise. If the Deputy wishes, I can commit to making such an amendment in the euro control Bill.

It is not good practice and I would not like to see it creeping in. However, on the basis of the Minister's commitment in regard to the euro control Bill I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, line 9, after "1975" to insert ", and a copy of the said French text shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister as soon as may be after the passing of this Act".

This matter was raised on Second Stage. In the event of any dispute on the wording, it is the French text of the international convention that applies. The arrangement that a copy of the French text should be available from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland is strange and on Second Stage I made the point that I would not like to be in a hurry in trying to get my hands on it. It is important that a copy of the French text should be laid before both Houses. On Second Stage I suggested that we might add it as a schedule to the Bill, but it is probably more convenient to lay it before the Houses, as proposed in the amendment.

The Deputy is correct. I also would not like to try to find a copy of the French text in the vaults of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw. We are concerned here with the Warsaw Convention, which is in French. As the Deputy will be aware, it is now largely superseded by the Montreal Convention, which is replicated in a number of languages, and the requirement to use the original document will not be as great. The French text of the convention is available on the website of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. I will place a copy of the documents in the Oireachtas Library, where the Deputy can study the French text whenever she wishes.

Let me hear the Minister accepting the amendment.

There is no need. We will arrange for the French document to be placed in the Oireachtas Library and it will be there for Members of the House to peruse at any stage. It is not necessary to legislate for it. It will be readily available. I urge its reading, at least once a day.

That is fine if one wants to read it today, but what would happen in ten years' time if somebody wanted to look it up?

It will be in the Oireachtas Library.

The Minister has already legislated for it in so far as the Bill provides that a copy of the French text is available in Poland. Would it not be helpful if he stated that it was laid before the Houses because that would mean that in the future somebody would know where to locate it?

It is the Warsaw Convention, which is an historic document that will not change. I will arrange to have it formally placed in the Oireachtas Library where it will be permanently and readily available. It is also on the website. A ten year old could look it up whenever he or she wished.

I do not know what the Minister's difficulty is with accepting the amendment but it would have been preferable to provide for this in the legislation. That is the normal practice when one is referring to official documents.

I see the Deputy's point. I gather other legislatures did that. The office of the parliamentary counsel considered that it was unnecessary. It is now readily available and it is on the website. It will not be referred to that much because the Montreal Convention supersedes it in many places and that is where all the action will be for the future. It is also safely in the vaults of the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw.

Whoever drafted the Bill originally considered it necessary to describe where the text was and that is why it would be helpful in the future if it was described as being in the Oireachtas Library. If the Minister is not prepared to accept it ——

I take the Deputy's point on such original documents for the future.

Not to the extent of accepting the amendment. However, I will not press it. It is not particularly important.

My advice is that this meets the requirement and I would be happier to leave it at that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, form a composite proposal and will be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, subsection (1), line 10, to delete "notified in Iris Oifigiúil”.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that any order under the Act would be published in the ordinary way as a statutory instrument, not simply notified in Iris Oifigiúil. The Statutory Instruments Acts require all orders to be notified in Iris Oifigiúil as a matter of course and the only effect of stating this in the Bill would be to suggest that the Statutory Instruments Acts should not apply to the orders under this Bill. This would be an undesirable practice. The amendment would have the effect of ensuring that the orders would be made in the ordinary way and that notice of making them would be published in Iris Oifigiúil in accordance with the general law and provisions.

If the amendment is not accepted, the risk is that a Minister will simply publish a notice in Iris Oifigiúil and will not publish the order in the ordinary way. I table these amendments to prevent that happening.

I can see the Deputy's concern on reading the legislation in the way it is laid out, but that is the way it is normally done. Of course it is intended to publish these in the ordinary way. They would be available for sale in the Government Publications Sale Office. This simply ensures that they are also published in Iris Oifigiúil.

That happens automatically under the Statutory Instruments Acts.

The section does not mean that they are published in Iris Oifigiúil only. What will happen is that they will be published in the normal way. The fact that they go into Iris Oifigiúil is simply a reference to the fact that they have been published in the normal way. That is what happens in other legislation. It is found, for example, in section 48 of the Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001 and in various sections of the Asset Covered Securities Act 2001. To be clear, they will be published in the ordinary way and the Iris Oifigiúil reference confirms that they have been published.

That is a departure from normal practice. It is not normally stated in a Bill that orders will be published in Iris Oifigiúil because under the Statutory Instruments Acts they are automatically published. It looks as if the Minister is trying to short-circuit the procedure here by simply publishing them in Iris Oifigiúil.

It might be wise to put this on the record. Section 3(1)(b) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1947, as amended in 1955, provides that as soon as may be after a statutory instrument is made, notice of its making and of a place where copies may be obtained shall be published in the Iris Oifigiúil. The repetition of this requirement does not affect or throw into question the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Acts. It simply clarifies for the reader of this Act that the making of an order shall be notified in Iris Oifigiúil. This type of wording, including the phrase “by order notified in Iris Oifigiúil”, is found in other legislation including for example, section 48 of the Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001 and various sections of the Asset Covered Securities Act 2001. Therefore, it is in two relatively recent Acts and it is done for the purposes of clarity. That is my advice from the office of the parliamentary counsel. However, if the Deputy thinks it needs tweaking, I can undertake to do it in the forthcoming euro control Bill.

I am concerned with the inclusion of this provision in this, as opposed to any future, Bill. Is it the Minister's intention to publish orders in the normal way under the Statutory Instruments Acts?

Yes. This section has been used in two recent Acts and in both of those cases statutory instruments, if there are any, will be published in the normal way and Iris Oifigiúil follows on from that.

Does the Minister take my point that if it is his intention to publish them under the Statutory Instruments Acts, then they will automatically be published in Irish Oifigiúil and there is no need to refer to that in the Bill? He needs to refer to it only if he intends bypassing the Statutory Instruments Act.

I take the point that it is repetition in that it repeats the requirement. There is a requirement under the Statutory Instruments Act to publish it. It happens automatically and goes into Iris Oifigiúil. This wording repeats that. It does not contradict it.

It appears that the Minister is bypassing the Statutory Instruments Acts by simply committing to publish it.

I see the point but the result is the same - it gets published in Iris Oifigiúil. This copperfastens the Statutory Instruments Acts. It may not be legally necessary from a drafting point of view to do that but my advice is that the repetition does not affect or throw into question in any way the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Acts. It simply clarifies for the reader of this Act that the making of an order shall be notified in Iris Oifigiúil. It repeats what must happen in any case.

If the Deputy holds strong views on this we can amend this legislation in the forthcoming euro control Bill rather than do it now, which would mean returning the Bill to the Seanad. This would mean that the Iris Oifigiúil provision would not apply in the euro control Bill and, by amendment, would also not apply to this legislation. However, my clear advice is that it is simply repetition and is done for clarity. The net effect is exactly the same. The statutory instrument is published, and it is then published in Iris Oifigiúil and available to everybody.

We should deal with each Bill on its own merits and try to perfect it as much as possible. That is the whole purpose of Committee Stage.

I take that point.

It strikes me that unless the Minister is trying to short circuit the system and avoid the Statutory Instruments Acts, it is superfluous to make a reference to Iris Oifigiúil on three occasions in this Bill. I will not press the amendment but I ask the Minister to think about it for Report Stage.

I will do so. I accept that it is repetition. As I said, my notes indicate that it is done for clarity purposes and that it in no way undermines, affects or throws into question the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Acts, but if the Deputy is concerned about that I will take a look at it.

I will accept the Minister's assurance that the matter will be reconsidered for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 is beyond the scope of the Bill.

Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Schedules 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Top
Share